Behold, the wisdom of Trump: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.
Asterios wrote: if you are going to quote me then quote the whole thing I said
What I put in quotes is arguably better than what you wrote.
its not what I say, its what some say, even family Guy has done a stint on this whole thing too.
Holy gak... "It's not what I say, it's what some people say... even though I just said it."
It's like the classic "I'm just asking questions" defense.
Some people say that if we ignore trolls that feed of gak posting and derailing threads, then the OT would be better. Some people call that "disengagement" I think.
congrats whatever you want to believe, you believe it, what I want to believe I will believe and neither the twain shall meet.
Right, I'll continue to believe that you've made several antisemitic remarks and you'll continue to dig yourself into a hole defending them (as if there is a defense that could be made).
congrats whatever you want to believe, you believe it, what I want to believe I will believe and neither the twain shall meet.
Right, I'll continue to believe that you've made several antisemitic remarks and you'll continue to dig yourself into a hole defending them (as if there is a defense that could be made).
Asterios wrote: oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?
...
Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...
Asterios wrote: oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?
...
Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...
in other words you cannot answer the question, nuff said, i'm outta here. gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.
TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.
TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.
So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?
A 5 way split might result in 6 new Republican senators and 2 new Democrats.
TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.
gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.
Ah yes, the traditional inability to tell the difference, despite people explaining it over and over again, between "Clinton is the bestest evar" and "Clinton isn't great, but she's better than the alternative". I'll just note here that most of the people you're talking to are in the second group.
TL;DR: While Brexit may have stirred the secessionist pot, a similar Texit would not be legal. Texas has a unique right among states to split itself into five states but not to secede from the United States of America.
So... Austin gotta be it's own state... eh?
I am going to sub to that guy, sounds like he knows his stuff! Hurray!
I do find it interesting that yet again it is the local minority saying it.
Asterios wrote: if it helps you sleep better at night, whatever.
Whatever indeed, mate.
Given your current trajectory, I'm sure you'll work yourself into an OT ban before long, so have fun with that.
Thing is, I don't see that happening, short of a mods personal desire. He floats that line between dakka appropriate speech and non-appropriate speech exceedingly well.
I take any vocal Trump supporter with a huge grain of salt though. Trump is pretty much trolling the world right now, and its incredibly easy for his "supporters" to get a rise out of people almost anywhere.
Behold, the wisdom of Trump: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.
Behold, the wisdom of Drumpf: "it's ok that the pound just crashed to historic lows, it means more business for my golf course". Truly this is a man that should be trusted in a position of power over the US economy and there is no doubt at all that he would ever put his own interests ahead of the good of the nation.
How anyone takes him seriously is beyond me....
I mean somethings he says are really dumb but there has to be at least one shred of decency----
Anyway. Do we have other information apart from the Texas secession group forgetting it is illegal to leave the United States?
Actually, I think it's the fact that the older voters *remembers* what UK was like pre-EU.
Whereas the younger generation has no frame of reference and thus don't want to rock the status quo.
We have recorded history to looks at, without the effect of rose-tinted glasses. The UK was not sunshine and roses before we joined the EEC. It was times of slow economic growth (for example France and Germany were growing at rates of up to double that of England in the 60s).
Asterios wrote: oh it is stereotyping, but answer me this, do you have a money man? if you do, who would he be? can you name any good money men that are not Jewish?
...
Not really helping that "I'm not racist" argument here...
in other words you cannot answer the question, nuff said, i'm outta here. gonna take me a smoke break and ignore the Clinton worshippers.
Well, the best accounting firms in the UK are Deloitte and PwC. Neither of them were started by Jewish people, nor are they currently ran by Jewish people.
Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.
The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.
didn't know Muslim was a race? or Mexican? and yet the Muslim Religion has people of all races in it, even white, and the Mexican culture, also has many people of other races including blond haired blue eyed white skinned Mexicans, so sounds like you are the racist here.
in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.
"Muslim" and "Mexican" are not racially neutral terms. It's true that anyone could become a Muslim or a Mexican citizen but nobody really thinks of a blue-eyed person when they use those terms.
Can also watch the video about him saying that too. He is equally racist to Mexicans, Muslims, and basically anyone that isn't white and male.
The guy is well known to be racist and sexist. Can't really defend the guy at all.
didn't know Muslim was a race? or Mexican? and yet the Muslim Religion has people of all races in it, even white, and the Mexican culture, also has many people of other races including blond haired blue eyed white skinned Mexicans, so sounds like you are the racist here.
in other words learn what racism is. not what you think it is.
"Muslim" and "Mexican" are not racially neutral terms. It's true that anyone could become a Muslim or a Mexican citizen but nobody really thinks of a blue-eyed person when they use those terms.
That brings us into the territory of what people think is more important than facts.
Ok, so what's happening in the little ol' USA . Over here in the UK, we've been busy with collapsing economies, political parties in meltdown, a Prime Minister forced to resign, the leader of the opposition has gone stir crazy, Scotland threatening to secede, anger on the streets, and our forge world models are leaving the nation at an alarming rate
You guys having a presidential campaign or something?
You'd think in a nation with the population we have, there could have been a far better selection of presidential candidates. It's like the line from Zoolander about feeling like I just took a bottle of crazy pills.
Relapse wrote: You'd think in a nation with the population we have, there could have been a far better selection of presidential candidates. It's like the line from Zoolander about feeling like I just took a bottle of crazy pills.
We could. The problem is that the primary system, especially the republican primary system right now, strongly rewards the biggest raving lunatics instead of the sensible candidates. All those better candidates would never make it out of the primaries.
Peregrine wrote: We could. The problem is that the primary system, especially the republican primary system right now, strongly rewards the biggest raving lunatics instead of the sensible candidates. All those better candidates would never make it out of the primaries.
I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).
For the most part, primary candidates are people who match ideology of the party, and are also pretty decent chances of winning the general. Because the party base wants someone who'll matches their own politics, but they also know you don't get anything done with an ideal candidate who gets thumped in November.
I mean, if you look back at the candidates, on the R side you've got Trump, Romney, McCain, Bush, on the D side you've got Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore. Obviously the R guys came from the right side of politics and the D guys came from the left side of politics, but in each case they're reasonably close to the centre of US politics, except for Trump. And even then he's an extra weird candidate because as well as being a terrible candidate he's also got very little in common with conventional Republican politics.
It could be a sign that conventional Republican politics aren't working anymore. It could be a sign that future primaries on both sides will be won by ludicrous idiots who game the primary system by saying crazy bs and filling up the 24 hour news cycle. Or possibly it could just be a crazy thing that happened one time, and everything will return to normal in the next presidential cycle.
sebster wrote: I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).
But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was. And most of the other candidates did the same, at least when they weren't sincerely raving lunatics. The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.
There's really an underlying structural issue here. Primaries tend to have very low turnout*, so a candidate with a relatively small number of rabid supporters who will show up with 100% turnout will win every time against a mass-appeal candidate that has to settle for the average turnout rate. We'd probably see this more with the democrats except they don't really have any equivalent to the "we'll vote for anyone who hates the same people Jesus hates" or "BURN DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT" groups, so the candidates are a little more reasonable. But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.
*For example, in 2008 (the most recent election where both parties had presidential primaries) the primary had only 36% turnout while the general election had 63% turnout. And this was with a closely contested primary race between Obama and Clinton.
To be fair, I think Obama actually did believe in hope and change, and he was a bit naive -- much less experienced than Hillary, for example -- and do not understand the extent of opposition the Republicans would put up against any of his proposals.
Also, looking at presidential elections only tells part of the story. There have been some rather amusing cases where far-right candidates challenged mainstream republican incumbents in congress and state-level elections, won the primary by appealing to their fellow extremists, then promptly failed in the general election where turnout is much higher. And we're talking about blatantly unelectable candidates where everyone but the extremists saw a landslide victory for the other side being inevitable, but they still managed to win the primary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, I think Obama actually did believe in hope and change, and he was a bit naive -- much less experienced than Hillary, for example -- and do not understand the extent of opposition the Republicans would put up against any of his proposals.
Sure, I'm not saying it was a cynical lie to get elected. But if you look back on it in hindsight you see a lot of rather vague optimism and promises about how everything is going to be better, and not nearly as much about the practical realities of policy decisions. And a lot of the high turnout among younger voters that got him the nomination was because of that vague optimism. Take away that high turnout rate and we're finishing the last of Hillary Clinton's second term right now and speculating about Sanders as her successor.
For anyone who is curious, Texas has long been plagued by those who somehow think that leaving one of the most prosperous nations on the planet would be a good thing (and also have to hear from out of state idiots who think losing one of the largest producers in the nation would also be fine). One of the more well known crazy pants organizations is the Republic of Texas. http://thetexasrepublic.com/ They believe secession is a "very popular" idea. They also believe that Texas never gave up its sovereignty, so they aren't very good with "facts".
Asterios wrote: compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
And what exactly is that? What is so terrifying in Hillary's agenda that you'd rather have an incompetent racist whose entire strategy is screaming really loudly about how everyone but rich white men is ruining America in a desperate hope to draw attention away from things like his business fraud and accusations of raping a 13 year old girl?
She voted for Iraq
She pushed for the war in Libya
She pushed for war in Syria
She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA).
She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors.
She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time.
She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Good. Excellent call by the SC.
Disagree... this is a case of "the end justifies the means" ruling.
The US abortion laws will remain being a 'blight'...
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Consistent ruling against states' attempts to regulate away rights and choices. States in the Northeast and West Coast try to do the same thing with gun rights and SCotUS rules against that too.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Are you saying they didn't cherry pick him because he fit the narrative?
sebster wrote: I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).
But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was. And most of the other candidates did the same, at least when they weren't sincerely raving lunatics. The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.
There's really an underlying structural issue here. Primaries tend to have very low turnout*, so a candidate with a relatively small number of rabid supporters who will show up with 100% turnout will win every time against a mass-appeal candidate that has to settle for the average turnout rate. We'd probably see this more with the democrats except they don't really have any equivalent to the "we'll vote for anyone who hates the same people Jesus hates" or "BURN DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT" groups, so the candidates are a little more reasonable. But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.
*For example, in 2008 (the most recent election where both parties had presidential primaries) the primary had only 36% turnout while the general election had 63% turnout. And this was with a closely contested primary race between Obama and Clinton.
I think you're letting your personal political views color your perceptions a bit too much. The candidates you consider to be "raving lunatics" are popular enough to get millions of votes and win nominations. It's a natural byproduct of opening up the primary process to voters. Whether closed or open primaries will have lower turnouts than the general election because even with registered Party members most people don't get involved with politics until the general election. The only way to get more control over candidates is to go back to letting the Party leaders and politicians choose the candidates instead of the people. The whole primary process is set up to let a minority of Party members and interested voters decide who the Party nominates for PotUS. There's no way for the system not to skew towards the extreme base because those are the only people that reliably turn out to vote in primaries. Letting people vote in primaries puts the candidate selection at the mercy of the people willing to show up and vote.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws. If anything they would increase the likelihood of things like that happening as poor people who cannot afford to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion get desperate and turn to illegal providers in unsanitary conditions, just like they did when abortion was illegal.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Are you saying they didn't cherry pick him because he fit the narrative?
I'm saying what does it say when the guy who was in charge of our security says what he said?
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
Actually... the distinction is if you believe abortion procedures are synonymous to going to an outpatient podiatrist to take care of your hangnail... sure. That Texas law is odious.
However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to "individuals deemed too dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation"(No Fly List) or "are suspected of some involvement with terrorism"(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding? There's an element necessary to understand this concept and it's called common sense.
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
And people who drank water have the ability to buy guns and explosives with no problem as well...
The problem is that there is no accountability for who goes on the terror watch list/no-fly list. There is nothing stopping a Republican administration from abusing it to put people who donate to the ACLU on it, for instance.
I would be in favor of requiring background checks (Not using non-accountable lists though), mental health screening, and mandatory safety training before being allowed to purchase/own a pistol though.
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Republican John Cornyn, was the only one to propose a bill that safeguarded the applicant's Due Process rights. Even then, the Democrats were more interested in the drama to gin up electoral outrage than to work on any supposed 'common sense' laws.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
WASHINGTON
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton “look good.”
Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top secret access, but assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he’s talking to two professors who are “getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”
Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family’s foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of “Hillary’s people” and mentioned that he recently sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.
The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.
The emails were provided to McClatchy by the conservative group Citizens United, which obtained them through a lawsuit filed after its Freedom of Information Act requests went unanswered.
Clinton, now the 2016 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, continues to face questions about whether she helped the Clinton Foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable countries and organizations when she served as the nation’s top diplomat. Clinton's campaign and Fernando's company did not respond to messages seeking comment.
As a member of the board, Fernando was to advise Clinton on nuclear weapons and other security issues alongside nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and former lawmakers, including former Defense Secretary William Perry, Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Adviser to two presidents; and former Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia.
In May 2009, Fernando sent an email to Abedin, a longtime aide so close to Clinton she has been described as her “second daughter,” explaining that he had met with another staffer about the board appointment and had written a letter about why he would be a valuable member.
“Everybody on that board is a top level defense expert, yet, I feel like I can add a lot to the group,” he wrote. “I have two professors from Northwestern and one from University of Chicago who are international security experts and are getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”
“I know we had you well into our process here,” responded Abedin, who now serves as vice chairman of Clinton’s campaign.
Later in June 2009, Fernando said he recently met with Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., who told him that when he traveled on Air Force One he noticed that the first speed dial button had Clinton’s name on it. “That is very cool! I didn’t know that,” Abedin responded.
Abedin asked if Fernando recently sent Clinton flowers as she was unsure who sent them. When he responds yes, she said “So nice of u.”
Months later, in September 2009, Fernando emailed Abedin again after meeting with another staffer referred to only as Tauscher – presumably Ellen Tauscher, a former congresswoman from California who was undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He said Tauscher told him that she may be able to include him as a possible choice for the board.
“They will have their list and Hillary will have hers and at the end of the day as long as they don’t have opposition to any of Hillary’s people, they should get in,” he wrote.
“In addition to my previous experiences listed in my resume, I have been meeting with professors from Northwestern, University of Chicago and Yale for the past 6 months,” he wrote to Abedin. “I know I will be able to hold my own and be valued contributor to this board. I promise I will make the Secretary look good.”
After ABC News contacted the State Department to ask about his qualifications, which included no international security background, Fernando announced that he had stepped down.
In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department’s professional staff, according to ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to FOX News.
In September 2012, after ABC News again questioned the State Department about Fernando’s appointment, senior adviser Heather Samuelson sent Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines a response provided to ABC News explaining why he was chosen.
Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: “Not the most compelling response I’ve ever seen since it’s such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?”
Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high frequency traders. Providence, R.I., sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies for defrauding the city, which managed funds for its employees.
Since 2003, Fernando has contributed more than $650,000 to federal Democratic candidates and organizations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. That includes Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns, her leadership political action committee and the group Ready for Hillary, which laid the groundwork for her second presidential run. Employees of Chopper Trading contributed $34,000 to Clinton’s presidential campaigns.
He served as a voluntary fundraiser or bundler for Clinton's first presidential campaign and later for Obama. He also gave $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that has indirectly helped Clinton.
He contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to records released by the foundation. Between $100,000 and $250,000 was donated before his board appointment. He once traveled with former President Bill Clinton to Africa.
In July 2015, Clinton attended a fundraiser at Fernando's home for her second presidential campaign. About 170 people each paid $2,700 to get into the event, according to the campaign. Hosts each raised $27,000 or more.
Is this not *proof* that Clinton went out of her way to deliver political favors to those who were funding her foundation???
*FWIW: I totally believe Trump would be just as bad in this regard... still on #TeamJohnson
Mmm and the Democrats push for DA Abuse in their party platform:
Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Frazzled wrote: Mmm and the Democrats push for DA Abuse in their party platform:
Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
How would weather predictions constitute corporate fraud? Commissioning a study isn't a crime and the confirmation bias that can be inherent in scientific studies commissioned by entities with an economic and/or political stake in findings of the study isn't illegal. That seems to be some kind of attempt to treat the fossil fuel companies like the cigarette companies hiding the fact that smoking causes cancer.
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
So when Texas leaves, can you take Florida with you? Thanks
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
It's not that the information is "out of date", it's simply the sampling I offered up. Stats are stats, they're not milk, they don't go out of date. As for individuals being on a "watch" list and not charged, is that really your criteria for what poses a threat? The fact that they haven't been charged or committed a terrorist act, that's the litmus test for a threat? You do understand the definition of "threat"? It's more of a perceived thing based on intention, study and observation. You see when a crime, terrorist or otherwise gets committed, it's no longer a perceived threat but reality. I'm neither a fan nor detractor of government, it is what we elect it to be, but when the FBI, et al, say "Hey, bit of a concern with this one.", I probably listen and probably don't want that person to have access to a gun or explosives. I'm funny that way. I'd rather do the whole "stitch in time" thing, especially when lives are at stake. As far as the whole stadium, bus, etc. deflection...it doesn't warrant reply. And yes, the lists are obviously arbitrary and ineffectual. I can see the Homeland Security Agents now, sitting around, throwing darts at a giant montage of names, races, addresses, etc...I'm sure that's how it's done.
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
Actually... the distinction is if you believe abortion procedures are synonymous to going to an outpatient podiatrist to take care of your hangnail... sure. That Texas law is odious.
However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Whembly, you're forgetting one extraordinarily important detail: it's Texas. The vast majority of hospitals in this state wouldn't grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors (remember, almost every hospital here has words like Methodist, Presbyterian, Baylor, etc, in the name). That's why this law was a backdoor way to outlaw abortion. If getting admitting privileges wasn't a problem, then the requirement wouldn't be an issue.
Ustrello wrote: Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Their financial statements always said they didn't know the impact of potential global regulations.
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
So when Texas leaves, can you take Florida with you? Thanks
Hey don't blame us for Florida. Thats on you Yankee retirees.
Hy don't blame us for Flo
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Didn't see this coming more southern states wasting money over something they know will be struck down
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
I saw it coming. Good ruling by the court. If you're going to have SCOTUS make up a private right, at least they are consistent in protecting that right against made up medical regulations designed to eliminate it.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
It's not that the information is "out of date", it's simply the sampling I offered up. Stats are stats, they're not milk, they don't go out of date. As for individuals being on a "watch" list and not charged, is that really your criteria for what poses a threat? The fact that they haven't been charged or committed a terrorist act, that's the litmus test for a threat? You do understand the definition of "threat"? It's more of a perceived thing based on intention, study and observation. You see when a crime, terrorist or otherwise gets committed, it's no longer a perceived threat but reality. I'm neither a fan nor detractor of government, it is what we elect it to be, but when the FBI, et al, say "Hey, bit of a concern with this one.", I probably listen and probably don't want that person to have access to a gun or explosives. I'm funny that way. I'd rather do the whole "stitch in time" thing, especially when lives are at stake. As far as the whole stadium, bus, etc. deflection...it doesn't warrant reply. And yes, the lists are obviously arbitrary and ineffectual. I can see the Homeland Security Agents now, sitting around, throwing darts at a giant montage of names, races, addresses, etc...I'm sure that's how it's done.
I referenced the date because you seem to be very concerned that 1,321 firearms were purchased by people on the lists over 6 years ago. If those guns were bought by really dangerous people then they've had 6 years to do something bad with them. Did that happen? You don't offer any evidence of that happening yet you seem to believe it should of tantamount concern to me to the point of inhibiting my ability to sleep.
Yes, my litmus test for a person being punished by the government is for them to actually do something wrong first. I believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is the foundation upon which our legal system is built. Ifthe government wants to punish a citizen and inhibit their rights then the government is obligated to show just cause for doing so, that's Due Process. If the government doesn't have the evidence to charge somebody with a crime, let alone convict them, then the government can't punish them.
If the government thinks somebody is a dangerous then they can investigate and see if there is evidence to warrant criminal charges. It does not give the government the right to create secret lists of people to punish them. How do the lists protect me? The lists aren't publicized, even the people on the lists aren't notified that they've been put on a list, the people on the list aren't kept under surveillance, the people on the list aren't restricted from doing anything other than using commercial air travel, the people on the list don't have an appeal process to be removed from the list, the people on the list don't have a mechanism to prove they don't belong on the list before the government adds them to the list. You don't know who's on the list or why they're on the list but you're certain that they all belong on the list even though the list doesn't actually inhibit them from doing anything dangerous (other than boarding a plane) so you want the government to make the list even more punitive even in the absence of any evidence that it actually makes any kind of difference.
No it isn't. It's not like the corporations know that fossil fuels pollute and are trying to hide that from the public, that's always been known and has been regulated for decades. Commissioning studies that end up supporting their own agenda isn't illegal. Different studies and opinions doesn't add up to deliberate malicious intent on hiding objective facts from the public.
If a company is producing a product and knows that the using the product can cause the side effect of contracting a deadly disease and deliberately hides that fact for decades in order to keep the public ignorant and continuing to buy their product is different from paying scientists to do a study. There are a plethora of climate studies out there, the fossil fuel corporations aren't hiding data from anyone. The public knows the dangerous of pollution and fossil fuel companies have been following government regulations, and being punished when they don't, for a long time.
A political party shouldn't use federal agencies to manufacture criminal cases against industries just because they're unpopular with the party's voting base. That's an obvious abuse of power.
See link above, they did know about it
All that link says is that Exxon did a study that showed that the developing the Natuna gas fields would involve venting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and they chose not to do the development because of the potential for increased costs from some form of carbon tax or emissions penalty/regulation. It doesn't prove that Exxon had conclusive proof to a degree of scientific certainty that fossil fuels were the direct cause of anthropomorphic global climate change because the global community of scientists hadn't made any such declaration back in 1981. The idea that CO2 emissions would be regulated and expensive doesn't prove that fossil fuel development changes global climate and weather patterns.
Contrast that to the tobacco industry where the medical community already knew that cancer was lethal and the industry knew that smoking greatly increased your odds of contracting cancer. The concept of anthropomorphic global climate change wasn't anything near a scientific certainty in 1981, regardless of what one in house impact study done by Exxon might have said. I fail to see how the US govt could prosecute Exxon because they decided not to develop the Natuna gas fields because the amount of carbon emissions generated by the extraction could incur excessive additional costs.
Ustrello wrote: Still waiting on that sweet whembly flip around this fall I got a DCM riding on it
Never gunna happen.
Besides... I'm going to see if I can bring a phone with me to the voting booth for a selfie proof.
If you never flip, I might have to send the DCM money to the Hillary Clinton reelection fund
You basterd*.
*purposely spelt wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Well you could possibly charge Exxon under the RICO act because they knew about global warming since the 70s and paid shill scientists to say it isnt true.
Not really.
RICO was designed to address organized crime.
It was specifically designed to help with some of the difficulty that prosecutors traditionally had in cracking big organized crime rings... mafia families, drug trafficking organizations, that sort of thing.
And I hope to god Democrats put that on their platform... they'll look ridiculously dumb.
Friendly reminder: it's polite to either just quote what you need to respond to, or to at least hide gigantic quotes behind a spoiler tag. Basic rule of thumb: if your post is shorter than the text you quoted, you're probably doing it wrong.
Using your First Amendment rights is not RICO. RICO is racketeering via wires (aka phones-yes its that old). Arguing about the methodology, causes, and timing of global warming (which used to be global cooling) is not RICO. It is however, an excellent way to shut down dissent. Be careful what you wish for Democrats. You may not like what happens when you get your wish.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Asterios wrote: so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Exactly. And under those circumstances where somebodies life is in danger surely no hospital is allowed to turn that person away anyway, regardless of if they have admit privileges? If that isn't the case then the problem is not with the abortion clinics lacking these privileges but with the way your hospitals are being run that they can apparently deny care to peoples whose life depends on it.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
Asterios wrote: so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
The El PAso entity cited had done tens of thousands of procedures without referral to a hospital. You are correct.
The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
Peregrine wrote: He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
This actually got me thinking. Does the TSA suck simply because it exists, or does the TSA suck because it's so horribly managed? Never really thought about before. On the basic level, having someone to check bags, and do basic security seems simple and practical. Why then is the TSA such a monumental pain in the butt for travelers everywhere, and why can't the TSA even pass tests of their search procedures? An inventive terrorist or madman might get creative and find ways around them to be sure, but even when we have people go undercover and test the TSA they fail more often than not.
So why the hell is the TSA so ineffective at the job it has, let alone whatever hypothetical security concerns may arise in the future?
d-usa wrote: I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
This. Anesthesia is one of the most dangerous "basic medical practices" on the planet, and we let that happen basically anywhere a "certified technician" happens to be standing.
d-usa wrote: The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.
And that's very true... however, at some point the states can only control what happens within the state.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
Goalpost... wazzat?
Tell you what... look at the video:
Spoiler:
So what happens here is that people in general form opinions and arrive at conclusions based on partial or erroneous information all the time.
It's what we do. No one is an expert of all things... (unless, they stayed at the Holiday Inn! )
So... when people arrive at a conclusion, then they start becoming vested in that conclusion. Initially, no one wants to be wrong... so, they will put up barriers to defend that from anyone who challenges that conclusion.
Right? I mean... if we're talking about the divergence in our views in politics... that is how we all can arrive with different conclusions/opinions.
What we see here in the above video is that interviewers are circumventing those barriers by asking a very simple, straight-forward question, then offering to show a video. They aren't openly challenging beliefs so are able to slip in an opposing viewpoint that the subjects, for whatever reason, have obviously never thought about.
What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.
Here's the videos that the viewers saw:
Spoiler:
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
Peregrine wrote: He was the former homeland security boss under whose authority the TSA was established. I think this is a pretty good reason to consider him laughably unqualified to comment on anything related to security.
This actually got me thinking. Does the TSA suck simply because it exists, or does the TSA suck because it's so horribly managed? Never really thought about before. On the basic level, having someone to check bags, and do basic security seems simple and practical. Why then is the TSA such a monumental pain in the butt for travelers everywhere, and why can't the TSA even pass tests of their search procedures? An inventive terrorist or madman might get creative and find ways around them to be sure, but even when we have people go undercover and test the TSA they fail more often than not.
The answer can be summed up in one word: money. Considering what the average TSA person has to deal with on an average day, it simply doesn't pay enough to hire and retain good people.
d-usa wrote: I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
This. Anesthesia is one of the most dangerous "basic medical practices" on the planet, and we let that happen basically anywhere a "certified technician" happens to be standing.
Huh?
You have to be a licensed practitioner (ie, MD) to administer anesthesia.
O.o
Edit: I was incorrect, in most states, nursing can take further accrediation (Anesthesist... I think) to be able to administer. I've never been around a practice where the Anesthesiologist (the MD) wasn't around. Point being... this isn't the equivalent as a "certified technician".
whembly wrote: You have to be a licensed practitioner (ie, MD) to administer anesthesia.
No you don't. An MD can administer anesthesia (MD's specializing in it are called anesthesiologists). So can a DDS (a dentist) if they are certified. However, especially in surgery rooms and large hospitals a lot of anesthesia is administered by a CRNA, which is basically a nurse specifically trained in Anesthesia. Becuase that's how dangerous Anesthesia is. They actually bring in someone whose sole job in surgery is to manage it. With that said, there's an entire shady field of anesthesia out there, filled with people credentialed to apply anesthesia, but who are not remotely trained to a level that you should be comfortable with. They tend to be the kind of people with portable machines who go around to small clinics, hospitals, and dentists offices that don't have a machine of their own, or someone certified to manage it on staff.
Changing gears, here. Something I heard on the radio and I did a little looking on the Internet about. Apparently, Ted "Net-Neutrality-is-Obamacare-for-the-Internet" Cruz is now fighting to "keep the Internet free". From what little I've gathered, as there hasn't been much major coverage on this, is that he doesn't want the evil ICANN to be in charge of DNS instead of the US, because apparently the US owns the Internet? I'm very fuzzy on the details (posting from my phone, too, so it's hard to do much in the way of research), but has anybody else heard anything more informative? I just find the principle of Cruz somehow trying to keep the net free, after his previous statements regarding net neutrality, to be laughable in the extreme.
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
The good news about the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is that they actually paid attention to the science, rather than their own opinions. When both the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (and a slew of other actual experts) all come down on one side of the issue, it doesn't actually matter what your opinion (or mine, or Breyer's, or Alito's) is on the "health and safety of the women" argument is; the facts are clear. The question is simply whether those facts should be considered when determining if the legislation is constitutional. (And, apparently, whether res judicata applies.)
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
The good news about the SCOTUS ruling on this matter is that they actually paid attention to the science, rather than their own opinions. When both the AMA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (and a slew of other actual experts) all come down on one side of the issue, it doesn't actually matter what your opinion (or mine, or Breyer's, or Alito's) is on the "health and safety of the women" argument is; the facts are clear. The question is simply whether those facts should be considered when determining if the legislation is constitutional. (And, apparently, whether res judicata applies.)
My favorite was Thomas (?) calling out the court's hypocracy:
The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment.
The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.
LordofHats wrote: The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.
He's arguing for consistent application of undue burden, and thus believes that this ruling would further confuse the lower courts.
Not sure if that falls in your "hypocritical" bucket.
She voted for Iraq
She pushed for the war in Libya
She pushed for war in Syria
She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA).
She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors.
She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time.
She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.
Those first three things you list could be considered to be warmongering, but are hardly the marks of corruption.
The last two on your list are corruption, but don't seem to be any more corrupt than Reagan (quick google search reveals: Iran-Contra, cabinet rigging contracts in their favor, as well as "numerous" scandals with the EPA), U.S. Grant... To be fair, the articles I'm seeing on Grant say he wasn't corrupt, but his cabinet sure as feth was.... Same thing with Warren Harding. And of course, Nixon who was trying to rig elections.
Don't get me wrong, I think she's corrupt, and I won't be voting for her, but I don't think she's the "most corrupt"
d-usa wrote: The claim that it was "to protect the women" was also severely damaged by the argument that it doesn't restrict access because they can go to all the 'unsafe' and 'dangerous' clinics in neighboring states.
And that's very true... however, at some point the states can only control what happens within the state.
whembly wrote: However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Except abortion isn't "medically serious" most of the time. The rate of problems is very low, and the rate of "OH GOD EMERGENCY" problems where a patient needs to go directly to the hospital is even lower. Regardless of what emotional or moral ideas you have about the subject of abortion the procedure itself is an incredibly low-risk thing that should be regulated the same way as other minor low-risk medical procedures. The only reason for treating abortion like dangerous surgery was to make it more difficult and expensive for providers of abortions to stay open.
I had general anesthesia to have all my wisdom teeth removed at once while sitting in a chair at the local dentist office. That procedure probably was much riskier than the vast majority of abortions.
Goalpost... wazzat?
Tell you what... look at the video:
Spoiler:
So what happens here is that people in general form opinions and arrive at conclusions based on partial or erroneous information all the time.
It's what we do. No one is an expert of all things... (unless, they stayed at the Holiday Inn! )
So... when people arrive at a conclusion, then they start becoming vested in that conclusion. Initially, no one wants to be wrong... so, they will put up barriers to defend that from anyone who challenges that conclusion.
Right? I mean... if we're talking about the divergence in our views in politics... that is how we all can arrive with different conclusions/opinions.
What we see here in the above video is that interviewers are circumventing those barriers by asking a very simple, straight-forward question, then offering to show a video. They aren't openly challenging beliefs so are able to slip in an opposing viewpoint that the subjects, for whatever reason, have obviously never thought about.
What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.
Here's the videos that the viewers saw:
Spoiler:
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
With a straight face, I can tell you that these procedures typically do not go awry and are in no way as dangerous as anesthesia.
He's arguing for consistent application of undue burden,
Where is the inconsistency? His ideological position that there is no right to privacy doesn't reflect that the rest of the court. Even the other justices who dislike the paradigm established by Roe don't agree with his legal interpretation. That isn't an inconsistency. That's Thomas grinding the same ax he's ground every day since he took the bench, and the only other justice who agreed with him on it is dead now. Thomas however turning around and making an that particular argument is completely hypocritical. What does he think a gag order is? A warrant? There isn't a judge in this country who hasn't issued at least one "encroachment" in their career. It's literally half of what judges do, especially in dealing the constitutional issues. The judiciary invents tolerable degrees of encroachment regularly. In turn, Thomas' creates ad hoc dissents solely to vindicate his legal ideology all the time. So really he's got two hypocrisy's running there.
LordofHats wrote: The only thing hypocritical there is Thomas if he really thinks the Court has no business creating "tolerable degrees of encroachment." What does he think the legal definition of "undue burden" is? Half the courts decisions throughout its history have involved deciding where rights end and where they begin, because only a fool argues that rights are absolute. Laws against inciting riot have stood up in court time and time again, because you do not have an absolute right to free speech.
We don't have an absolute right to free speech but we do have a constitutional right to free speech that requires the govt to submit a compelling justification for restricting that right and doing so in a manner that isn't an undue burden. You can point to the section of the constitution that guarantees a right to free speech. What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.
The constitution is an old document and it's a living document, it doesn't cover every everything that's why it has the amendment process built in. The nation has changed a lot in the last 50 years but the constitution hasn't, it's only been amended 3 times in the last 50 years and the most recent time in 1992 was to ratify an amendment proposed 202 years ago. Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.
Prestor Jon wrote: What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.
That's a whole other argument entirely.
The court didn't invent a right to access to abortion clinics. The court concluded (over a series of 200 years and dozens of cases), that you have a right to your own person. That's the fundamental principal that underlies the entire BoR, but is not outright stated there in. You have a right to your person. Constitutional law embodied that principal as a right to privacy from governmental intrusion (in the US the legalese term is more usually the "right to be let alone"). It's been around for a very long time (since the mid 1800s w, and Roe v Wade didn't invent it. Roe v Wade simply renamed a specific application of the concept as the "right to privacy" derived as a consequence of the 4th, 9th, 14th Amendments.
The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page. That was the whole point of the Ninth Amendment, because while the Founding Father's probably couldn't fathom miniature cameras, the internet, or abortion as socially acceptable, they did fathom that the people should not have to hinge the protection of their rights on Congress making a law forbidding itself from violating their rights that it might never make (and they gave us a Court to basically do exactly what the court in Roe v Wade did; slap down the government when it reaches further than its powers allow).
Prestor Jon wrote: Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.
Which is something I've pointed out numerous times. If Congress just did their jobs and wrote better laws without the petty political agendas poisoning them, half of the cases that get to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.
Prestor Jon wrote: Instead of trying to constantly twist the constitution around to address new issues that weren't imaginable when the document was written the court should put the responsibility back on the Congress and the states to pass amendments to address new issues that people want the constitution to address.
Which is something I've pointed out numerous times. If Congress just did their jobs and wrote better laws without the petty political agendas poisoning them, half of the cases that get to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.
The problem is 'better' laws is a very subjective thing sometimes. Especially with this case in mind.
And if we've learned anything from 200 years of US history, it's that Congress is both slow to act, and happy to experiment with just how far it can push its powers. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Getting basic legislation through the process has never been easy, and passing new Amendments is even harder (almost all Amendments passed since the BoR have been passed at a time when one party had complete control of Federal government, or address basic procedural practices like pay raises, terms, and election procedures).
LordofHats wrote: And if we've learned anything from 200 years of US history, it's that Congress is both slow to act, and happy to experiment with just how far it can push its powers. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Getting basic legislation through the process has never been easy, and passing new Amendments is even harder (almost all Amendments passed since the BoR have been passed at a time when one party had complete control of Federal government, or address basic procedural practices like pay raises, terms, and election procedures).
On using the No Fly List to produce a list of people who cannot be sold guns... I can't help but think the gun activists are repeating history. With the Brady Act they reacted against a high profile and scary sounding thing, "assault weapon", and moved to ban that. Unsurprisingly the ban did little to curb gun violence because those weapons were responsible for very few shootings. This time around the scary thing is terrorists with guns, and so they're trying to stop that. Except terrorists are doing very little of the shootings in America, despite capturing so much of the media's attention.
The outcome of the Brady Bill was an ineffectual law that eventually lapsed, and the only political result was a stronger conviction among many people that gun laws won't stop gun violence. I think that's something gun control advocates should seriously think about before trying to make a case for this new gun restriction.
Peregrine wrote: But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was.
Sure, but that's true of any process in which you first have to convince the politicians and political activists of the party that you're one of them, and then have to convince the greater population that you're one of them. This more or less happens in every country, the only difference in that elsewhere it largely happens behind closed doors.
This move to fringe followed by a swing back to the centre is more pronounced in the Republican party because that party has been steadily marching off in to cuckoo land over the last couple of decades. It is a reflection of the party, not the process.
The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.
Sure, and it leaves a big question as to whether the Republican party has actually left the reservation. Will they be able to drag their crazies along to the next ballot to support a more sensible candidate, or are they going to spin off with more and more attention grabbing lunatics. It will be some scary but fascinating viewing in four (or possibly eight) years time.
But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.
Yeah, things probably would have played out better for Democrats if Clinton won in '08. It would have given Obama another 8 years to work and learn the rules of Washington, so he probably would have hit the ground running this year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think you're letting your personal political views color your perceptions a bit too much. The candidates you consider to be "raving lunatics" are popular enough to get millions of votes and win nominations. It's a natural byproduct of opening up the primary process to voters.
Democracy is important and so the ability to win lots of votes might make a person a legitimate political power, but that has nothing to do with whether or not that person is in fact a complete idiot with little to no understanding of what is important in government.
For instance, Donald Trump won more primary votes than any other Republican. And in the general election he will likely win something north of 50 million votes. But he is still incredibly poorly informed about the world, and has the decision making of a petulant child. I'm not sure 'raving lunatic' is the description I'd choose for him, but it's probably close enough.
Again, though, the issue isn't the primary, the issue is with the Republican party, who've steadily fed their base a diet of crazy bs, and are now looking in amazement as their base is acting on that crazy bs.
What happened here is that the viewers had to re-evaluate their conclusions again, faced with different information.
All of the viewers were fairly indecisive, they had not reached a definite conclusion. They were pressed to give a response, to arrive at a conclusion off the cuff; a classic push-polling tactic.
I also like how the video they were shown used a representation of a fetus at about week 13, not about week 5. Or, if they were being honest about the matter, about week 8; prior to which ~66% of abortions occur.
...then tell me with a straight face that these procedures couldn't go awry and isn't as dangerous than general anesthesia.
Oh, they can, but they usually don't. My knee, elbow, and shoulder surgeries could have gone awry, but they didn't. Any time you submit yourself to medical procedure, the possibility of complications exists.
Medical professionals are not God's, but they are pretty good at what they do.
Exactly. We don't have to bother with videos of random people trying to decide what to think of abortion, and we don't have to look at a description of the procedure and try to speculate about how dangerous we think it sounds. We can consult the experts and the statistics on the observed rates of problems requiring hospitalization and get a clear answer to the question. And when we look at the facts we see that abortion is a low-risk medical procedure, comparable to various other low-risk things that are commonly done outside of a hospital. There is no medical justification for singling out abortion for tighter restrictions, it is purely an attempt to drive abortion providers out of business.
She voted for Iraq She pushed for the war in Libya She pushed for war in Syria She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA). She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors. She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time. She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.
Those first three things you list could be considered to be warmongering, but are hardly the marks of corruption.
Nor are they meant to. They show incompetence.
The last two on your list are corruption, but don't seem to be any more corrupt than Reagan (quick google search reveals: Iran-Contra, cabinet rigging contracts in their favor, as well as "numerous" scandals with the EPA), U.S. Grant... To be fair, the articles I'm seeing on Grant say he wasn't corrupt, but his cabinet sure as feth was.... Same thing with Warren Harding. And of course, Nixon who was trying to rig elections.
Iran Contra didn't drop $200mm in Reagan's pocket.
However it comes down to a simple equation. If you like how things are going you vote Hillary. She is the penultimate establishment candidate. If you don't there's Johnson or the other guy.
Long story short:
Branstad in April signed a proclamation "in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa," that encouraged people to attend an open bible reading in all 99 counties.
In fact....
I just reported for jury duty and the bible reading crew were parked out in front of the court house, on government property.
I am fine with people having faith. I have had it...however...I do not want my government or elected officials promoting religion.
TheMeanDM wrote: Sad to say that I live in a state that is headed by a governor who has forgotten that the state and church are supposed to be separate....
Long story short:
Branstad in April signed a proclamation "in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa," that encouraged people to attend an open bible reading in all 99 counties.
In fact....
I just reported for jury duty and the bible reading crew were parked out in front of the court house, on government property.
I am fine with people having faith. I have had it...however...I do not want my government or elected officials promoting religion.
From that article:
Ginny Caligiuri, an organizer of the Iowa event and a board member and a state director of the Iowa Prayer Caucus, called the concept of separation of church and state “a fallacy.” The roots of that doctrine were to protect religions, not government, she said.
However it comes down to a simple equation. If you like how things are going you vote Hillary. She is the penultimate establishment candidate. If you don't there's Johnson or the other guy.
Ehh, for me, it's not even a matter how whether I like the way things are going, it's more, "do I think things will get worse by voting X?" In this case, I think both Trump and Johnson are bad, but for wildly different reasons (and we don't really need to discuss why Trump is bad.... well, we might need to break out the crayons for some users ).
And thats the thing. You think things will get worse with the other guy.
Millions disagree. They feel that things are worse now and have to change. They felt that with the Sanders campaign. They felt that with the Tea Party campaign. They felt that with Trump, and they felt that in England. Now they are feeling that in France, the Netherlands, and even Germany.
Frazzled wrote: And thats the thing. You think things will get worse with the other guy.
Millions disagree. They feel that things are worse now and have to change. They felt that with the Sanders campaign. They felt that with the Tea Party campaign. They felt that with Trump, and they felt that in England. Now they are feeling that in France, the Netherlands, and even Germany.
We'll see who wins.
The establishment will eventually win... we're in the Calvin Ball era...
Also... a certain committee finally released a certain report that fully implicates you know who and She Who Will Not Be Named.
I am not a Trump supporter. But as predicted with the Great Recession, I think we are finally seeing the political impact of that. Things will change, here and in Europe. It has already started in England.
if the status quo does not change, there will be revolution, either political or otherwise. Trump and Sanders are the harbingers of that.
I agree with Frazzled, though I think revolution is too strong a word.
A lot of the social impulse behind the Brexit vote and the Trump vote is a generalised discontent about the bad situation that "ordinary people" (which means about the bottom 66% of the population nowadays) who are suffering from job insecurity, poor or negative income growth, and declining social welfare.
They can see the power elite are as rich or even richer than before and not unnaturally have looked for reasons why this situation has arisen.
Unfortunately a lot of the blame has been directed at 'diffrunt people' rather than the decisions of governments to allow the trickle down effect to lift up the lower orders.
This didn't work, of course, but the discontent has only intensified.
Prestor Jon wrote: What part of the constitution guarantees a right of access to abortion clinics? While I personally agree with this ruling I share Thomas' concern that SCotUS needs to be able to find support within the constitution itself to back up the claim that a law violates a constitutional right and that the court can't invent constitutional rights that can't be found within the document itself just to justify legal opinions.
That's a whole other argument entirely.
The court didn't invent a right to access to abortion clinics. The court concluded (over a series of 200 years and dozens of cases), that you have a right to your own person. That's the fundamental principal that underlies the entire BoR, but is not outright stated there in. You have a right to your person. Constitutional law embodied that principal as a right to privacy from governmental intrusion (in the US the legalese term is more usually the "right to be let alone"). It's been around for a very long time (since the mid 1800s w, and Roe v Wade didn't invent it. Roe v Wade simply renamed a specific application of the concept as the "right to privacy" derived as a consequence of the 4th, 9th, 14th Amendments.
The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page. That was the whole point of the Ninth Amendment, because while the Founding Father's probably couldn't fathom miniature cameras, the internet, or abortion as socially acceptable, they did fathom that the people should not have to hinge the protection of their rights on Congress making a law forbidding itself from violating their rights that it might never make (and they gave us a Court to basically do exactly what the court in Roe v Wade did; slap down the government when it reaches further than its powers allow).
Yes, SCotUS ruled that our right to our own person covers women choosing to have minor elective medical procedures like abortion. However, access to minor elective medical procedures are placed under state restrictions all the time. It's currently illegal for a minor to get a tattoo in Texas without parental consent yet it's legal for a minor to get an abortion without parental consent. If Texas passed a state law making it unlawful for minors to get abortions without parental consent and that if a minor lied about her age to get an abortion she could be charged with a class B misdemeanor would that be constitutional? Texas requires a licensed physician, nurse practicioner or physician's asssistant to put prospective patients through a 10 step screening process before allowing them to undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. Is that an unconstitutional undue burden on citizens' right to their own person? Is the constitutionality of the level of state restriction on these elective minor medical procedures consistently enforced by the courts?
The 2nd amendment conveys a clear right to keep and bear arms but even after the McDonald and Miller SCotUS decisions we still have states like CA, NJ and NY that have extremely difficult procedures to get a carry permit and gun laws that make it effectively impossible and unlawful to bear arms in those states while the majority of the states have more simple procedures and less restrictive laws. Where is the consistency in the courts in allowing extreme regulation of some constitutional rights by states but not allowing the same degreee of restrictions to be imposed on other rights? As Thomas wrote, you either have constitutional rights or you don't and if we have them then the courts should be able to consistently enforce the degree to which those rights can be regulated and restricted by the states.
I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?
Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.
To amplify, an abortion, a tattoo and removing an ingrown toe-nail are all in one sense minor surgical procedures. However they differ greatly in terms of timing and social impact, so it's foolish to pretend they are all identical before the law.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?
Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.
You're making an argument the dissent made as well-that it appears the courts are far more enthusiastic about protecting some rights, but not others.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?
Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.
Because the effects of not having an abortion are much, much more expensive, life altering and potentially dangerous than the effects of not having a tattoo.
jasper76 wrote: Abortion violates the morality of several modern religions. The religious want to impose their morality on everyone, whether they want it or not.
Religion doesn't explain why it's legal for NJ to restrict my 2A rights to the point of imprisoning me for traveling to see family there with my lawfully owned guns stored in my luggage in my car. That seems like a pretty heavy undue burden on my constitional rights. If that's legal then why isn't it legal for Texas to impose extremely harsh restrictions on abortion access? My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms. There's not much legal consistency there.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?
Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.
Because the effects of not having an abortion are much, much more expensive, life altering and potentially dangerous than the effects of not having a tattoo.
How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?
jasper76 wrote: Abortion violates the morality of several modern religions. The religious want to impose their morality on everyone, whether they want it or not.
Religion doesn't explain why it's legal for NJ to restrict my 2A rights to the point of imprisoning me for traveling to see family there with my lawfully owned guns stored in my luggage in my car. That seems like a pretty heavy undue burden on my constitional rights. If that's legal then why isn't it legal for Texas to impose extremely harsh restrictions on abortion access? My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms. There's not much legal consistency there.
I never said religion explains gun control restrictions in NJ. I can imagine much of the gun control constituency is religious and has religion motivations for limiting access to guns, but I don't know if it's true.
Abortion is much murkier than gun control an issue since abortion is not directly mentioned in the Constitution.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't clearly understand your point but naturally an abortion is different to a tattoo in that you can wait nine months to become old enough for a tattoo but you can't wait nine months to be old enough to have an abortion.
The UK and practically every other western nation sorted out abortion in the 1970s. Why have certain US states got such a problem with it?
If abortion is a minor elective medical procedure that is relatively safe and simple then why is it illegal for states to restrict it in the same manner they restrict other minor elective medical procedures that are relatively safe and simple?
Why can't a state like Texas restrict your constitional right to your person in regards to obtaining an abortion to the same extent that a state like New Jersey can restrict your consitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Constitutional rights are all equally important and equally protected so the same level of undue burden of restrictions should apply to all of them.
Compelling interest. The court have (seemingly) decided that there is a compelling interest to regulate firearms to that level, but not abortions. Now, whether you agree with that is a different issue entirely, but that's the reason.
And I'd disagree that you rights are all equal at a fundamental level. Voting and free speech rights are far more important for the continuation of a free nation than making quartering soldiers in private home and excessive fines. And I'd argue that the 2nd amendment no longer fills the purpose of keeping the us a free nation. It may have at one time, but the reality is that it does no longer. That's not to say that I wish to ban guns or anything, or even getting rid of the 2nd. I'd like more intelligent gun legislation, that actually stops people who shouldn't have access from getting guns, not just more gun legislation, or stupid stuff like making attachable grips or barrel shrouds illegal. I'd actually like to see more access in many areas, and think that (as silly as the idea of having to carry a gun around to defend yourself is to me), there should be access to bear arms, be it CC or open carry. Although no stupid stuff like the government not being able to ban unautharised guns on it's premisis, or carrying your AR-15s into chipotle.
Prestor Jon wrote: How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?
You've convinced me.
I no longer have a problem with minors getting tattoos.
How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?
You can legally give it up but that won't help you if you suffer a miscarriage or other pregnancy problem which puts the mother at risk.
Tattoos are more restricted than abortions because they are a permanent choice (well, almost) whilst also not serving an actual medical purpose. Simple as that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.
It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures? The constitutional right to you own person that protects your ability to get an abortion should also protect your right to get tattoos, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures and other safe, minor elective medical procedures yet it doesn't appear that it does since many other safe, minor elective medical procedures are more restricted by states than abortions.
All constitutional rights should have the same protection and be safe from the same degree of undue burden by the state. The same argument for less restriction of abortion by the state should apply to all other elective medical procedures. Either we all have more liberty from state restrictions based upon our constitional rights or the state should have the ability restrict all of our constitutional rights to the same degree. Some rights shouldn't be protected from state restrictions more than others and the degree of restriction imposed by the state should apply to all instances equally. That's what the law is supposed to do, treat everyone equally and protect all of our rights equally.
How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?
You can legally give it up but that won't help you if you suffer a miscarriage or other pregnancy problem which puts the mother at risk.
Tattoos are more restricted than abortions because they are a permanent choice (well, almost) whilst also not serving an actual medical purpose. Simple as that.
So you're arguing that the state can impose more restrictions on your right to do what you want with your own body if you want to put art on your body for no medical purpose than it can for safe elective medical procedures? If an abortion is a medical procedure that is routinely done for the health of the patient why doesn't it need parental consent like other minor medical procedures like tonsilectomies? If a medical procedure needs to be done to save the patient from death or harm a doctor doesn't need parental permission but when it's an elective procedure parental permission is required for a minor, except for abortion where a judge can grant permission instead. A judge can't grant permission for a minor to get an elective tattoo but a judge can grant permission for an elective abortion. Why the double standard? A woman has just as much of a right to choose to get a tattoo then she does to get an abortion.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?
Come on, you're a smart guy. You know the difference is that in other minor medical procedures, the regulation is roughly commensurate with the expected risk and an eye towards reasonably mitigating that risk, and with abortion, the restrictions are with an eye towards restricting access and as a way of backdoor outlawing them. That's why you don't see states requiring admitting privileges for colonoscopies or vasectomies.
Prestor Jon wrote: How so? You can legally and easily give up a baby the day it's born. You can't just give away a tattoo. You don't need your parent's permission to get an abortion but you do need your parents' permission to get a tattoo. If tattoos are less harmful than abortions why are they more restricted? If you have a right to your own person why can states prohibit minors from getting tattoos?
You've convinced me.
I no longer have a problem with minors getting tattoos.
Good. Having consistent limits on how the state can restrict our constitutional rights is a good thing. Equality of legal protection is better than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.
Prestor Jon wrote: It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?
Come on, you're a smart guy. You know the difference is that in other minor medical procedures, the regulation is roughly commensurate with the expected risk and an eye towards reasonably mitigating that risk, and with abortion, the restrictions are with an eye towards restricting access and as a way of backdoor outlawing them. That's why you don't see states requiring admitting privileges for colonoscopies or vasectomies.
Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.
Prestor Jon wrote: than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.
I think we're circling back to "it sure would be better if Congress wasn't such a cesspool, so we didn't have to rely on those 9 unelected politicians in robes to pretend about precedent or not, so they can cast their partisan votes" discussion. If so, I agree.
Prestor Jon wrote: Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.
Except I agreed that NJ and NY's "bans in all but name" are totally unconstitutional! There is absolutely no disconnect here. I don't think there is a constitutional protection for concealed carry, but what those states have done is functionally remove the right to bear arms.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.
It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?
Prestor Jon wrote: than arbitrary decisions about which rights get what degree of protection depending on what cases get heard by SCotUS and when the decisions are made.
I think we're circling back to "it sure would be better if Congress wasn't such a cesspool, so we didn't have to rely on those 9 unelected politicians in robes to pretend about precedent or not, so they can cast their partisan votes" discussion. If so, I agree.
Prestor Jon wrote: Come on, you're the same guy that argues that states shouldn't be allowed to restrict gun rights to extreme degrees the same way some states (like Texas) want to restrict what you can choose to do with your own person/body. This is the same argument. If SCotUS says Texas can't restrict abortion than NJ shouldn't be able to restrict my gun rights to the degree that they do. We either have consistent constitutional protection of all our rights or we don't.
Except I agreed that NJ and NY's "bans in all but title" are totally unconstitutional! There is absolutely no disconnect here.
I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you first should explain to us how having a baby and having a tattoo are identical, then we will try to explain to you how they are different.
It has been argued in this thread that abortions are safe, minor elective medical procedures and shouldn't be subject to heavy state restrictions because of that fact. I am asking the question that if abortions are minor and safe why is it wrong for a state to restrict them in a manner consistent with the restrictions placed on other safe, minor elective medical procedures?
You haven't answered the question.
I thought I did. They're both safe, minor elective procedures that people are free to have done because we all have a constitutional right to our own person. A woman's right to choose to have a tattoo isn't somehow less protected or valid than a woman's right to have an abortion. Limits of the state to restrict on should apply to the other as well as a host of other options people should be free to choose to have done with their own body. Abortion isn't some special snowflake that gets extra constitutional protection. We either have constitionally protected rights or we don't.
Eldarain wrote: Putting a wall up on your property is an equivalent to a continent stretching financial money pit?
read the story, its worse, while a wall on the US border will help secure our borders a little more, all this wall does is block peoples views and interferes with the local environment.
The Consitution does not begin and end with the literal words on the page.
Yeah? It is a living document, though it seem like you don't want it to be.
Simply stated: Living document doesn't mean that "since the times change, so the text means something different". The fact that the Constitution can be changed via the amendment process is by definition a living document.
News flash: being against a multi-billion dollar construction boondoggle does not mean being against walls in places where they belong? I bet his house has walls as well! They probably even separate rooms!
The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.
A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.
Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.
skyth wrote: The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.
A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.
Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.
There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first. There are parents who might harm their child if she gets an abortion so judges can give consent instead of parents to circumvent parental consent. Why can't a judge give a minor permission to get a tattoo?
I'm not arguing that arbortion isn't safe. I'm arguing that why can the state place more restrictions on other procedures that are just as safe as abortion and that's ok but putting that same level of restriction on abortion is unconstitutional? A woman's right to choose is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to choosing other procedures? That's inconsistent. Your ability to choose what you do with your body is equally protected regardless of the options you're choosing from.
You're really only serving to promote the idea that kids shouldn't need their parents permission to get a tattoo.
You've made a believer out of me, anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: The reason that there are laws that say a minor doesn't need a parent's permission to get an abortion is because there are parents that would harm their daughter if they found out she was pregnant.
A teen not being able to get a tatoo does not fall into the same category.
Plus abortions are actually safer than giving birth.
I think we're meant to believe that there are no longer any parents who would ostracize or abuse their child if they learn the kid got pregnant.
Prestor Jon wrote: I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.
But your "fallacy" seems to be nothing more than the fact that people aren't going off on a tangent and talking about how awful gun control is in the middle of a discussion of abortion. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about everyone's positions on gun control based on nothing more than the fact that they aren't actively complaining about it.
Asterios wrote: on a side note, an anti-Trump, anti Wall claimer has built a wall around his property in Hawaii.
And? Do you have a fence around your house?
Now I know you're trolling
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up. furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
If states were allowed to operate as intended this discussion would be a local one.
The fact that the Fed has basically become a totalitarian institution is the problem.
Most people completely misunderstand what the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) is for. The Bill of Rights RESTRICT the government from infringing on your natural rights. You do not get your rights from the Constitution.
As abortion is not yet named in the Constitution then its a State issue.
Personally I believe in the right to chose up to the 3rd trimester. After that you are murdering a baby, not just scraping tissue out of a uterus. There is point that the fetus becomes a person, and killing it after that is murder.
Prestor Jon wrote: I agree with no disconnect with us, I'm trying to point out to others the fallacy in valuing some rights more than others instead of championing more liberty for everyone across the board. People shouldn't tolerate excessive state restrictions on any of our rights. This train of posts from me started as a response to LordofHats about some minor disagreement about Thomas' dissenting opinion and just grew from there.
But your "fallacy" seems to be nothing more than the fact that people aren't going off on a tangent and talking about how awful gun control is in the middle of a discussion of abortion. You're making a whole lot of assumptions about everyone's positions on gun control based on nothing more than the fact that they aren't actively complaining about it.
The only gun control positions I've brought up in my recent posts are the ones that have been taken up by state legislatures and SCotUS, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm making assumptions about individual forum members opinions.
Again, this whole "tangent" evolved from a few posts between me and LordofHats regarding the quote from Thomas' dissenting opinion that was posted by whembly. I brought up gun control because it's a clear example of some states restricting a constitional right to a much greater degree than other states which parallels what Texas was trying to do with the constitutional right to our own bodies. Constitutional rights exist and they are protected from unduly burdensome restrictions by states and since all constitutional rights are equally valid and important the degree to which the state can restrict them should also be equally enforced. That was the gist of Thomas' dissent, that the court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of constitutional rights. Other members chimed in with their own posts and the tangent evolved.
@SickSix: One goal of the Bill of Rights was, indeed, to enumerate the rights of US citizens. Rights are an abstraction...they only exist because we define them for ourselves. If they are not codified in law, they are meaningless..
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Preston John: since when were all rights equally important?
Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “if any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
The report accuses longtime Hillary aide Cheryl Mills of undue influence over the Accountability Review Board, from the composition of the committee to access to information and witnesses...
In conclusion:
The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks.
During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made.
In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth.
The absolute appalling display of incompetence here...
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
Simply stated: Living document doesn't mean that "since the times change, so the text means something different".
Yeah, it does. I don't know how much you know about the English language, but it is a bit of a bear; especially when you get into specific interpretations.
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
jasper76 wrote: @SickSix: One goal of the Bill of Rights was, indeed, to enumerate the rights of US citizens. Rights are an abstraction...they only exist because we define them for ourselves. If they are not codified in law, they are meaningless..
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Preston John: since when were all rights equally important?
All rights are inherently equal. Your right to free speech isn't more important than your right to freedom of religion or freedom of assembly. They all come from the same place, they all have the same constitutional protection, one isn't given greater prominence than any other. They are all included in the first amendment, they're all treated the same. Other rights that are protected by other parts of the constitution are also equally important because there is nothing in the constiution that differentiates them in importance or categorizes them in tiers or whatever. Why do you think some of our constitutional rights are more important than others?
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up. furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Constructing a solid barrier patrolled by armed guards across the entirety of the border to Mexico out of hatred of Mexicans is not exactly the same sort of issue as what a person can do with their house and yard. Sure, they may be a jerk for putting up a stone wall around their yard. I haven't read the article and I won't.
But, like, to frame this as "building a wall" versus "building a wall" is brutally stupid because one is a security apparatus operating around the clock to keep out the undesirable races and the other is someone piling rocks up and leaving them there. In one case "blocking the view" is a relevant complaint and in the other case it isn't.
You're prioritising form over content. Merely because something is summed up the same way it doesn't mean that the full extent of the ideas behind the statement are the same.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
As I have said before, "Mexican" is not a racially neutral term in the US. When Trump talks about Mexicans he doesn't mean blue-eyed people nor does his audience interpret him as talking about being blue-eyed people.
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
so you are saying that all those non-Americans who speak bad about the US are racists then ?
jasper76 wrote: @ Preston John: I get the idea from common sense. It seems obvious to me that some rights would be more valuable to an individual than others.
I understand your point that they are not put into an order of importance Constitutionally.
Inherently, we have no rights, except perhaps the right to be food.
Are you referring to value in the sense of individual preference or value in terms of legal significance? The law and the courts should value all rights equally because the law applies to everyone equally. A person might cherish his/her right to free speech more than his/her right to not incriminate herself/himself in court but that is irrelevant to the courts upholding our rights equally.
I would argue that we all have inherent natural rights, we simply don't all live under governments that recognize and protect all our rights.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I would argue that we all have inherent natural rights, we simply don't all live under governments that recognize and protect all our rights.
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
QED.
Right, because pointing out that your chosen terminology doesn't make sense is the same thing as disputing that your premise is wrong or is an attack on your or makes me "right wing." Racism, bias and prejudice all have their own meanings, you shouldn't conflate the terms in ways that don't make sense given those meanings.
Asterios wrote: this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.
What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.
furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?
Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.
so you are saying that all those non-Americans who speak bad about the US are racists then ?
I'm going to ask you to explain how you came to that conclusion, because I'm not seeing it.
I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.
Asterios wrote: there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
Ok, because you insist on nitpicking the word rather than addressing the substance of the argument we'll call it culture-ism. Happy?
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built
IOW "the magical fairies and unicorns will build it for me". That is not a realistic policy statement to make.
as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
Oh really? Have you actually done the math on the respective costs of those two things, or are you just assuming that it will all magically work out that way?
jasper76 wrote: @Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.
Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.
Asterios wrote: there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
Ok, because you insist on nitpicking the word rather than addressing the substance of the argument we'll call it culture-ism. Happy?
as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built
IOW "the magical fairies and unicorns will build it for me". That is not a realistic policy statement to make.
as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.
Oh really? Have you actually done the math on the respective costs of those two things, or are you just assuming that it will all magically work out that way?
1: much better but still wide of the mark, since Mexicans are not the only culture that enter this country illegally thru the southern border.
actually after what i've seen my own Governor institute and sign into law pertaining to illegals, yes that is fact hell this state has spent more in the past 2 years on illegals (from drivers licenses, MediCal, schooling, medical insurance, lawyers(lawyers to help illegals become legal), we could fund guards on the wall for decades, so yeah.
I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.
Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.
You aren't even arguing against what he wrote, you're just restating it. Yes, anyone can convert to Islam and be a Muslim. Yet the people who talk of the looming threat of Islamisation of the West don't think about white people when they do.
I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.
Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.
There are plenty of influential rappers that were/are neither black or poor. If anything rap is understood to be urban.
jasper76 wrote: @Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.
Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.
Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities.
The "inherent right to be secure in person and life" is also a fiction. There is no such inherent right. We define it for ourselves, or it does not exist.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races,
If you read my post you could see I said "they aren't really talking about all Muslims but scary brown people", so it was already addressed.
furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card,
Or, maybe, just maybe, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Trump and his rhetoric, and the rhetoric used by his supporters.
forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.
No, I'm not. I'm taking about people trying to keep the "Mexicans" out. But yes, I'm sure Trump's retoric is talking about the 50K Irish illegal immigrants. Definitely.
I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.
Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.
Eminem is Black?
oh wait what about golf its termed as an old white sport you know like Tiger Woods, oh wait hes not white either.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.
You aren't even arguing against what he wrote, you're just restating it. Yes, anyone can convert to Islam and be a Muslim. Yet the people who talk of the looming threat of Islamisation of the West don't think about white people when they do.
not me I'm thinking white, brown, black whatever color you think of when I think of Islamics and or Muslims.
but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.
"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."
Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.
last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races,
If you read my post you could see I said "they aren't really talking about all Muslims but scary brown people", so it was already addressed.
furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card,
Or, maybe, just maybe, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Trump and his rhetoric, and the rhetoric used by his supporters.
forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.
No, I'm not. I'm taking about people trying to keep the "Mexicans" out. But yes, I'm sure Trump's retoric is talking about the 50K Irish illegal immigrants. Definitely.
so now you are insulting me, i'm a Trump supporter, so now i'm a racist according to you, you just proved my point you threw out the race card when there is no race involved.
jasper76 wrote: @Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.
Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.
Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.
Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.
A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.
More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.
The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.
Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.
I don't know, slavery was an accepted part of many cultures for a very long time. Same for the way many cultures treated women as property.
And, again (I think you missed it the first time as it was in an edit), what decides these rights?
Vaktathi wrote: A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.
More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.
The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
jasper76 wrote: @Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.
Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.
Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.
Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.
You can tell yourself you have any right you want to. It doesn't really mean anything unless there is a law codified to define it, as well as structures to protect it.
In modern society, it is almost unthinkable that one person would have rights over another body and life. In other societies, it would have been plain as the nose on your face to either own or be owned by another human.
We had to fight a bloody war to get that right codified and respected. There was nothing inherent about the right. It needed to be fought for.
Vaktathi wrote: A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.
More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.
The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.
True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.
jasper76 wrote: @Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.
Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.
Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.
Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.
You can tell yourself you have any right you want to. It doesn't really mean anything unless there is a law codified to define it, as well as structures to protect it.
In modern society, it is almost unthinkable that one person would have rights over another body and life. In other societies, it would have been plain as the nose on your face to either own or be owned by another human.
We had to fight a bloody war to get that right codified and respected. There was nothing inherent about the right. It needed to be fought for.
The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.
No, not literally every single person who so much as hummed part of a rap chorus is black or poor. A number of musicians have been decently paid because they bring in even more money than they're given to the recording company they're signed with. A few make it big enough to go on their own and be their own label. Blues and jazz were black once and rock frightened an entire nation before companies stepped in, whitewashed it and made it safe for sale. Rap has spread across the world and been embraced by millions but its roots are undeniable.
Asterios wrote: but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.
I specified people who go on about Islam taking over the West, not all white people.
Vaktathi wrote: A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.
More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.
The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
Having lived in some of these places much of my life and worked in some of these industries, migrant and illegal workers are huge portions of the workforce. These people arent just coming over and sitting on their asses, you cant get by doing that, especially for any extended period of time.
Having done far more time than I care for in places like Fresno or Bakersfield and Lodi, I can't ever recall a natural US citizen pulling veggies or picking grapes in those fields. Not one. Some of the workers come in through legal migrant worker programs, but by no means all. The exploitation of that cheap labor source ia a huge drive for that illegal immigration, one that both producers and consumers dont like to acknowledge all that often.
True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.
Aye, and increased emphasis on enforcement of existing laws, a drive for greater mechanization, and some changes in consumer habits and expectations would go a very long way to cutting down on the demand for illegal immigrant labor, as would assistance developing these nations where large numbers of migrants come from to remove the supply side of the equation.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
No, not literally every single person who so much as hummed part of a rap chorus is black or poor. A number of musicians have been decently paid because they bring in even more money than they're given to the recording company they're signed with. A few make it big enough to go on their own and be their own label. Blues and jazz were black once and rock frightened an entire nation before companies stepped in, whitewashed it and made it safe for sale. Rap has spread across the world and been embraced by millions but its roots are undeniable.
Asterios wrote: but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.
I specified people who go on about Islam taking over the West, not all white people.
me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.
me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.
I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.
I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...
well lets see the comment was made about Trump Supporters, i'm a Trump supporter, so yeah considering the OP decided to lump us all together guess i'm included in that.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.
From the page:
it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented
So, no, it doesn't.
estimated, let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally, but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
me i'm not worried about Muslims or Islamics, only the radical versions of them same with radical Christians and so forth, also don't think people are talking about Islam taking over the west (except for a few nutcases) but about Terrorists who are Islamic. but then you love throwing around that race card and bigotry card and thinking all white folk being thinking the same thing.
I notice a recurring theme where you keep assuming people are talking about you...
well lets see the comment was made about Trump Supporters, i'm a Trump supporter, so yeah considering the OP decided to lump us all together guess i'm included in that.
But I thought you said Trump 'wasn't your guy', you were just voting for him because you didn't want Clinton to win?
True. We get migrant and illegal labor in the US because our labor laws and domestic policies incentivize it and large sectors of the economy, agriculture, construction, etc. profit from it. We don't get illegal immigration because we don't have a wall we get illegal immigration because domestic interests want it and are motivated by profit to get it. Unless you remove the need for it we aren't going to stop it from happening.
Aye, and increased emphasis on enforcement of existing laws, a drive for greater mechanization, and some changes in consumer habits and expectations would go a very long way to cutting down on the demand for illegal immigrant labor, as would assistance developing these nations where large numbers of migrants come from to remove the supply side of the equation.
Agreed. It would also help a lot if we took better care of our visa system.
Nearly 500K foreigners overstayed visas in 2015
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY 12:52 p.m. EST January 20, 2016
MIAMI — Nearly half a million foreigners who legally entered the U.S. remained here after their visas expired last year, according to a government study that is the first of its kind.
The report, obtained by USA TODAY, is the first analysis of a population that is largely unknown. The so-called "visa overstays" represent an estimated 40% of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, but are overshadowed by undocumented immigrants who sneak across the nation's southwest border with Mexico.
Tracking and policing visa overstays is difficult and not nearly as much fun as ranting about giant walls that will never get built but it would be a big help to our immigration policy.
Of course politicians don't care about fixing problems they care about campaigning about problems and using them to help get elected.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.
From the page:
it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented
So, no, it doesn't.
estimated,
And...? I also mentioned that I saw 4/10 repeated. Which I got from a single google search Those are still more than "the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field". That 30-60% is a quite significant amount.
let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally,
And I work at a horse show, and about 95% of the laborers are undocumented. Anecdotal evidence for anecdotal evidence!
but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?
In the page one would think. They source the SPLC, but sadly not a link, so I ;ooked and found another one just for you.
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.
From the page:
it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented
So, no, it doesn't.
estimated, let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally, but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?
Glad to know that your "work in the cherry fields" is homogeneous with the rest of the farms in america
and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.
A quick google says 6/10 actually. I also saw 4/10. Not insignificant numbers.
yeah problem there is that tosses in both illegal and legal immigrants (with work permits) into the accounting.
From the page:
it is estimated that at least 6 out of 10 of our country’s farm workers are undocumented
So, no, it doesn't.
estimated,
And...? I also mentioned that I saw 4/10 repeated. Which I got from a single google search Those are still more than "the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field". That 30-60% is a quite significant amount.
let me give you an example, back when i worked the cherry fields all of my fellow employees there were there legally,
And I work at a horse show, and about 95% of the laborers are undocumented. Anecdotal evidence for anecdotal evidence!
but where is the proof of this estimation given on a pro legalization of illegals site?
In the page one would think. They source the SPLC, but sadly not a link, so I ;ooked and found another one just for you.
and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.
and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better? also a survey from back in 89-93 real up to date.
The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.
OK, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think that human political progress is the tale of a species discovering what rights it inherently has. I think human political progress has been made by people defining and demanding rights that they wish to enjoy, and fighting for those rights in one way or another.
I do not believe our DNA comes equipped with a set of rights, nor do I believe there is a magical right-giver that bestows rights.
and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.
HITS
Talking about the ones that the various farms bring in. Not so sure about the show it'self, but I don't doubt they have some. The equine industry in the US would collapse without immigrant labor.
and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better?
Actually they cite the National Agricultural Worker Survey. Maybe actually read the source.
The right already existed. People already knew that people had a right to their own bodies. We had society where we didn't recognize all people as being people, that was the problem. That's why once we emancipated the slaves and recognized them as people they had all the same rights as the other citizens. Slaves recognize the injustice of slavery and the violation of their right to own their own bodies and have self determination, that's why they revolt and why slavery has ceased to exist in modern societies, because modern socieities have all evolved to recognize our rights.
OK, we can just agree to disagree. I don't think that human political progress is the tale of a species discovering what rights it inherently has. I think human political progress has been made by people defining and demanding rights that they wish to enjoy, and fighting for those rights in one way or another.
I do not believe our DNA comes equipped with a set of rights, nor do I believe there is a magical right-giver that bestows rights.
I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to DNA but I think our concept of natural rights is inherent to us having consciousness and being self aware. Then we utilize our awareness of ourselves and our rights to determine if we want to build a society that recognizes them.
If you think we've exhausted the utility of this tangent then I'll agree to let it end here.
TIL a fence and a wall are different things, especially when used to demarcate property lines. Are their height / thickness requirements for the differences? Like is 6 feet of wood plank a fence but 3 feet of stone is a wall?
Asterios wrote: and what horse show is that? I call your anecdotal evidence. and say you are bluffing, since my aunt runs horse shows up in Northern California and her workers are inspected thoroughly.
and look another pro-illegal site giving guestimates or if they don't respond to the survey they are illegal, got anything better? also a survey from back in 89-93 real up to date.
IOW: "let me talk all about how your evidence isn't convincing enough for me, while offering nothing more than anecdotes to support my own position". Right now you're losing the credibility battle pretty badly.
whembly wrote: ...and here's the final report broken down nicely in BEFORE/DURING/AFTER sections:
Yeah, so after 8 previous investigations failed to turn up anything meaningful, Republicans decided to run their own investigation and reach their own conclusions. Shockingly they found that Clinton and Obama were to blame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.
With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.
Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.
And here you are, again, attempting this defense that because some group isn't a race, then it isn't racism. Which is true but ridiculous, because believing crude stereotypes about a culture may not be racism but it's still bigotry and that is just as bad.
Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.
sebster wrote: Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.
I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Personally I'm hoping for Carly Fiorina just for the possibility of her being knocked out three times in one political cycle.
Rosebuddy wrote: But, like, to frame this as "building a wall" versus "building a wall" is brutally stupid because one is a security apparatus operating around the clock to keep out the undesirable races and the other is someone piling rocks up and leaving them there. In one case "blocking the view" is a relevant complaint and in the other case it isn't.
By the logic presented by Asterios, anyone who ever builds any kind of wall for any kind of reason can never oppose the construction of any other kind of wall.
I mean, I think Trump's proposal for a wall across Mexico is an incredibly stupid boondoggle, because it will do little to impact illegal traffic, and because the problem is steadily resolving itself (increased prosperity in Mexico is reducing the economic reason for people to cross the border). The only reason it gets any kind of support is because it appeals to basic xenophobic instincts. But I also had a retaining wall built on a property I own, so I guess I must be a hypocrite?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.
What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?
Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.
*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Personally I'm hoping for Carly Fiorina just for the possibility of her being knocked out three times in one political cycle.
Ouze wrote: I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.
Maybe it was because it could maybe be seen as a positive generalisation? He was saying Jews good are good with money? A bit like how it's seen as okay to say Chinese people are good at maths, but offensive to say they're small and need to wear thick glasses? Even though both parts are drawing on the same negative stereotype of the nerd, people somehow think the former isn't as negative. So maybe it's that, but I really hope not, because the 'Jews are good with money' thing is really messed up as it is drawing on the stereotype of Jews as money grubbing and manipulative... which were really central ideas in the fething holocaust.
I don't know, I've been noticing more and more that dakka gets the forum that its moderation encourages. You can't say something mean about another poster, but you can engage in deliberately stupid lines of argument (equating tattoos and abortion, for instance), and now apparently you can also skirt the lines on some really offensive racial behaviour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I own a fence to keep my dog in, so I guess technically I support Donald Trump?
Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.
That has pretty much been the final kick in the ass that is making me post less and less in the OT.
The topic at the time was "Trump says racist gak". The defense given by him was "it's not racist, it's true, I also believe all this racist gak and I'm going to double down on it". Then he was called out on saying the same racist gak that Trump says.
And all we got was some orange MOD text to "stay on topic" when the topic was "Trump says racist gak and you are repeating it".
Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.
Also, holy gak you're still here after that stuff you said about Jews? Wow.
That has pretty much been the final kick in the ass that is making me post less and less in the OT.
The topic at the time was "Trump says racist gak". The defense given by him was "it's not racist, it's true, I also believe all this racist gak and I'm going to double down on it". Then he was called out on saying the same racist gak that Trump says.
And all we got was some orange MOD text to "stay on topic" when the topic was "Trump says racist gak and you are repeating it".
Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.
It's a real shame because I have seen some really good debates (and arguments ) in the OT where, even if I didn't agree with their side, I could see where it was coming from and why they thought it was good. Recently it does seem to have gone even more off the rails than it occasionally used to but I think that is down to a small number of posters who just keep cropping up and spouting off with the same kind of stuff in every thread.
d-usa wrote: Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.
I think of the OT forum kind of like shadow boxing. It produces absolutely nothing of value but it can be fun and sharpen your skills. The problem comes when the best the other side can come up with is Asterios, it's like shadow boxing with a new born. Sure you win, but the new born doesn't even know what just happened and you just end up feeling kind of like a bully.
So we're at this point where US politics is in an incredible place historically speaking, having picked as ridiculous a candidate as Donald Trump for a major party nomination, so you'd think it'd be a terrifying but fascinating time to be part of the political debate. But it's actually just kind of boring. And terrifying. Boring and terrifying.
d-usa wrote: Which made me realize that I'm just giving myself ulcers for no reason whatsoever because people are going to repeat the same idiotic racist gak and they get away with it, and nothing I do changes anyone's mind, so why bother.
The moderation policy is directly affecting the forum. When there's scope to post terrible and even racist arguments, but punishment for attacking those arguments in a very direct way, well then you end up with people posting terrible and even racist arguments, and less people willing to call them on their nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: It's a real shame because I have seen some really good debates (and arguments ) in the OT where, even if I didn't agree with their side, I could see where it was coming from and why they thought it was good. Recently it does seem to have gone even more off the rails than it occasionally used to but I think that is down to a small number of posters who just keep cropping up and spouting off with the same kind of stuff in every thread.
I think of the OT forum kind of like shadow boxing. It produces absolutely nothing of value but it can be fun and sharpen your skills. The problem comes when the best the other side can come up with is Asterios, it's like shadow boxing with a new born. Sure you win, but the new born doesn't even know what just happened and you just end up feeling kind of like a bully.
So we're at this point where US politics is in an incredible place historically speaking, having picked as ridiculous a candidate as Donald Trump for a major party nomination, so you'd think it'd be a terrifying but fascinating time to be part of the political debate. But it's actually just kind of boring.
I mean, I had assumed the ice was already thin before that but apparently some generalizations have a greater latitude than others? Not sure what other conclusions it's possible to draw from that.
Saying stupid things isn't against the rules- only being mean or going off-topic is.
sebster wrote: The moderation policy is directly affecting the forum. When there's scope to post terrible and even racist arguments, but punishment for attacking those arguments in a very direct way, well then you end up with people posting terrible and even racist arguments, and less people willing to call them on their nonsense.
Pretty much. Though, to be fair, dakka is hardly unique in this. Because moderators everywhere tend to be lazy it's very common for moderation to focus very heavily on bad words and rudeness and ignore pretty much everything else. So you can say whatever horrible or dishonest or blatantly false things you like as long as you're very polite and use only G-rated language to express your ideas. It's only on sites that make a deliberate effort to have a policy of "you don't have to be polite to trolls" that trolls and s are properly dealt with.
Peregrine wrote: Pretty much. Though, to be fair, dakka is hardly unique in this. Because moderators everywhere tend to be lazy it's very common for moderation to focus very heavily on bad words and rudeness and ignore pretty much everything else. So you can say whatever horrible or dishonest or blatantly false things you like as long as you're very polite and use only G-rated language to express your ideas. It's only on sites that make a deliberate effort to have a policy of "you don't have to be polite to trolls" that trolls and s are properly dealt with.
It is true that any policy that moves away from the simple and direct rules of banning rude language and insults does get more subjective, and more difficult to apply. I get that, and it's a reasonable consideration. And yeah, it's why most sites I've been on have limited their rules to just that. Moderating is a tough job to ask of a volunteer without making the rules more complex. And I'm by no means criticising the mods, even when they've banned me I think the rulings have been consistent with dakka rules.
But ultimately, you get the forum that rules encourage. That needs to be considered also. If there are ways to address things like people who make repeated false claims, or regularly fail to respond when their bad arguments are rejected, then I think it should be looked at. It could be restricted to repeat and chronic offenders without placing too great a burden on mods, I'd think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: If we don't like the way the forum is moderated, take it up with the mods, or YakFace. It serves no purpose to discuss it here.
That is a fair point. Okay. I'll make no more comment on the issue in this thread.
Ustrello wrote: Trump and Nugent running on the bat gak crazy ticket
So few words in this post, yet so much excellence.
Reportedly Trump is lining up "sports legends" and others for the Republican convention. Wait...what? Why do I feel we're about to enter a WWF pay per view event? "I'm seeing...Jake the Snake, Kim Kardashian, and a song lead in by Janet Jackson, WITH FIREWORKS!"
Apparently, 50% think Trump would do a better job on immigration vs. 45% for Clinton. So wall it is? And 52% think Trump would be better at creating jobs. Presumably related to construction.
Apparently, 50% think Trump would do a better job on immigration vs. 45% for Clinton. So wall it is? And 52% think Trump would be better at creating jobs. Presumably related to construction.
National polls are worthless. All that matters are the battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
Ustrello wrote: Trump and Nugent running on the bat gak crazy ticket
So few words in this post, yet so much excellence.
Reportedly Trump is lining up "sports legends" and others for the Republican convention. Wait...what? Why do I feel we're about to enter a WWF pay per view event?
"I'm seeing...Jake the Snake, Kim Kardashian, and a song lead in by Janet Jackson, WITH FIREWORKS!"
Mike Tyson is going. He's one of Trump's African-Americans.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.
With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.
Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.
You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right.
So you're against State rights? Because legal consistency across the US basically means trampling them.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.
With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.
Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.
You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.
You know what, I completely agree with you. We should remove the legal drinking age, smoking age, make all drugs legal for all ages, and let kids get tattoos/piercings whenever they want. We should also let kids have sex at any age because it is their body. Because if women can get abortions, kids should be able to do what they want with their body! Screw science and it trying to tell us that those things hurt developing minds! LIBERTY OR NOTHING! /s
Prestor Jon wrote: The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.
What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?
Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.
*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.
Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.
Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.
You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.
The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.
Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right.
So you're against State rights? Because legal consistency across the US basically means trampling them.
States are limited by the constitution. The states can't impose an undue burden on the ability of citizens to exercise their protected rights. The courts determine what constitutes an undue burden. The definition of an undue burden should be consistently applied to all of our protected rights. Limiting the states' ability to restrict our protected rights doesn't trample states rights, it upholds individual rights. I want the courts to consistently protect all of our rights and liberty from undue burdens of state restrictions.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
Prestor Jon wrote: There are parents that might harm their child if he/she got a tattoo without permission so the state requires that minors obtain parental consent first.
With a tattoo then refusing it without parental permission means that the person has to wait until they're 18, and in the meantime they'll just have to live with skin that doesn't have ink injected in to it. If you require a similar waiting period for a minor, then that minor will go through pregnancy, give birth, and then have a baby that they will have to care for or give to the state.
Those two things are so different in such obvious ways that the only possible conclusion is that you are choosing to engage in completely dishonest debate on this subject. I don't know why you've chosen to pretend to believe silly things, but stop it because you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own.
You're not understanding my point because you're focussing on the differences between what people want to choose and I'm concerned with the right to make the choices themselves. I glad the courts ruled in support of the "Pro Choice" side of the abortion issue because I am Pro Choice, but I am Pro Choice for a lot more choices than just abortion. The arguments that led to legal protection of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion also justify legal protection to for women (and men) to have legal protection to make a whole host of other choices. The courts shouldn't only protect a person's right to make a choice only when that choice is regarding whether or not to have an abortion. The courts should protect everyone's right to do what they want with their own bodies period. The court shouldn't be inconsistent with it's protection of choices and it shouldn't arbitrarily create a stronger right to some choices than others. I don't think wanting consistent equal protection of our rights by the law is silly because I don't think it's good for the courts to protect our right to our own bodies only in very specific and narrowly defined instances while allowing severe state restrictions on all the other instances where the state limits that right. I want the courts to vigorously defend the totality of our rights and liberts from unduly burdensome state restrictions, not just on hot button topics.
You know what, I completely agree with you. We should remove the legal drinking age, smoking age, make all drugs legal for all ages, and let kids get tattoos/piercings whenever they want. We should also let kids have sex at any age because it is their body. Because if women can get abortions, kids should be able to do what they want with their body! Screw science and it trying to tell us that those things hurt developing minds! LIBERTY OR NOTHING! /s
You have created a strawman argument. At no point did I state that I was a proponent of anarchy or absolute liberty or nothing. What I have consistently and clearly advocated for is a consistent standard for the courts to use to determine undue burdens placed on our individual liberties by the state. Consistent judicial rulings on constitutional protection of individual liberty is completely different from what your hyperbolic sarcastic statement describes.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.
If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.
No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.
No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.
and you still think government control is the only form of control, everything has a heirarchy or control to them someone calling the shots and in charge, it is seen in animals and most insects. as to people in isolation they are still at the whims of the country they are in.
Dreadwinter wrote: If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."
If that's where the courts draw the line with undue burdens placed upon our individual rights by the state, then yes. People should be free to make their own choices. Are you claiming that the government is currently phsyically stopping minors from being able to gain access to alcohol and cigarettes. Every minor that desires alcohol and/or cigarettes is more than likely capable of getting them right now already. All the govenment is doing is criminalizing that choice to enable the government to punish those minors for making that choice. It's a reactive prohibition not a proactive one. Nobody, minor or adult is required to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol it's a choice freely made. The adverse effects of cigarettes and alcohol afflict adults too, yet the governmet allows cigarettes and alcohol to be produced and sold and adults to consume both. Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?
Prestor Jon wrote: Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?
actually in California it is a crime for anyone under 21 to smoke here or at least buy smokes.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.
No, people don't need government, governments need people. You can have people with no government, there are large of areas of the world that currently don't have governmental control but have people in them. There are no governments that exist without people. You can have fully functional societies without government, there have been tribal societies living freely in the world for the entirety of human existence. Intrusive, regulatory government with the right of eminent domain is a relatively recent development created by people. Again, there is no naturally occuring government, there are naturally created people who can choose to create a government or not, and if they choose to create a government they choose whether or not that government has the power of eminent domain. A person, naturally created and in complete isolation from other people still have the natural ability to create and own property.
and you still think government control is the only form of control, everything has a heirarchy or control to them someone calling the shots and in charge, it is seen in animals and most insects. as to people in isolation they are still at the whims of the country they are in.
Are you claiming that all forms of hierarchy have an inherent right to the legal concept of Eminent Domain?
How are people in isolation still beholden to a nation? Who says a nation even has to exist? Tribes of people were living all over the world long before the land they lived on was claimed by any nation or government.
Prestor Jon wrote: The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.
What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?
Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.
*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.
Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.
Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.
You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.
The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.
Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
This is all wishful thinking. Idealism that may have laid the foundation for actual legal rights. It can be helpful in the progression of human rights to fantasize that these rights are innate, but IMO its dangerous to do so, because if you imagine your rights are innate, you might end up imagining they are inviolable. The truth is that you have no innate rights, the state can violate them both legally and illegally. You only have those legal rights that those before you and those contemporaneous with you take the effort to establish and protect.
But to pretend for a moment that rights are innate, do you have any idea which innate rights we have that are not (yet) protected by law? Surely if what you say is true, then there are innate rights we have that are not currently recognized by the state. Be interested to know what you think those are. Or is the Bill of Rights the expression of all of our innate rights?
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
never heard of Eminent domain?
As a legal concept? Yes. As an inalienable right? No. Governments aren't natural, they are a man made social construct, governments have no power except what is given to them by the people who create them. People exist with or without government therefore people can create property and own property in the absence of a government. No government has a natural right to a person's property, no government has a natural right to anything because no government has a natural existence.
but Government in and of itself is natural, a form of control and regulation for without it, you are left with anarchy. and that is not natural, people need control in their life in one form or another for without control and or rules nobody has anything or is guaranteed anything.
Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.
Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.
so Ant and/or bee Colonies with a Queen are natural? or Packs of Lions with an Alpha male are natural? or a pack of wolves with an Alpha are natural? but wait those are forms of control and such and they continue thru out a lot of nature too.
Dreadwinter wrote: If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."
If that's where the courts draw the line with undue burdens placed upon our individual rights by the state, then yes. People should be free to make their own choices. Are you claiming that the government is currently phsyically stopping minors from being able to gain access to alcohol and cigarettes. Every minor that desires alcohol and/or cigarettes is more than likely capable of getting them right now already. All the govenment is doing is criminalizing that choice to enable the government to punish those minors for making that choice. It's a reactive prohibition not a proactive one. Nobody, minor or adult is required to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol it's a choice freely made. The adverse effects of cigarettes and alcohol afflict adults too, yet the governmet allows cigarettes and alcohol to be produced and sold and adults to consume both. Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?
Alcohol and cigarettes do have adverse effects on adults, but they have harsher effects on a developing body. That is what you are not understanding. Just because something harms an adult does not mean it harms a minor the same way.
European drinking laws are more cultural than ours are.
Further, you have no rights in nature, so your argument of natural rights are absurd. Rights are a completely man made concept. A bear does not care about your right to body.
Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.
so Ant and/or bee Colonies with a Queen are natural? or Packs of Lions with an Alpha male are natural? or a pack of wolves with an Alpha are natural? but wait those are forms of control and such and they continue thru out a lot of nature too.
I suppose social structures in wildlife could be seen as a primal form of government. I'm open to that, and certainly acknowledge that the human animal had social structures before it had "government" as such, and those structures must predate our existence as a distinctive species, because they are also found in our closest relatives in nature.
Alcohol and cigarettes do have adverse effects on adults, but they have harsher effects on a developing body. That is what you are not understanding. Just because something harms an adult does not mean it harms a minor the same way.
but that is not a guarantee either, not everyone who smokes will be effected by cigarettes and to make the claim that smoking effects everyone is wrong though.
Prestor Jon wrote: The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.
What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?
Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.
*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.
Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.
Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.
You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.
The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.
Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
This is all wishful thinking. Idealism that may have laid the foundation for actual legal rights. It can be helpful in the progression of human rights to fantasize that these riots are innate, but IMO ita dangerous to do so, because if you imagine your rights are innate, you might end up imagining they are inviolable, then when the truth of the matter emerges and your legal rights are violates, you may believe that your legal rights cannot be taken away, even though in reality they can..the truth is that you have no innate rights, the state can violate them both legally and illegally. You only have those legal rights that those before you and those contemporaneous with you take the effort to establish and protect.
But to pretend for a moment that rights are innate, do you have any idea which innate rights we have that are not (yet) protected by law. Surely if what you say is true, then there are innate rights we have that are not currently recognized by the state. Be interested to know what you think those are. Or is the Bill of Rights the expression of all.of our innate rights?
I would argue the opposite. There are fundamental rights that exist beyond government because otherwise without government you have the right to do whatever you want to whomever you want. If you and I go out into international waters or into outer space it doesn't then make it ok for me to harm you or murder you or do whatever I want to you simply because there is no government/legal system holding jurisdiction over us and telling me that I can't. I don't have the right to assault you period, regardless of government.
To your point about the government being able to violate our rights, I would say that yes, that is true but that is simply the argument that Might makes Right. If we only have the rights that government gives us and government is powerful enough to do whatever it wants to us regardless of our legal rights then we essentially no rights at all even with government. The weakest and most important minority is the individual, that's why the US constitution limits the government by listing it's enumerated powers and preserves citizens' negative liberties. There are inalienable rights that individuals possess that cannot be justly usurped by government and therefore the violation of those rights is always wrong. The fact that violating your rights is wrong doesn't prevent it from happening but the fact that it happens doesn't make it acceptable either.
Personally, I think all of our naturally rights are covered by 5 rights, the right to life, the right to be secure in your own person, the right to self defense, the right to control your own labor and the right to own your personal property.
The failure of the US constitution to abolish slavery at the time it was ratified resulted in it failing to protect all of those rights because slavery is a direct violation of all our natural rights. In my opinion we've done a pretty decent job fixing that error, I think there is room for more improvement in terms of clarity and protection that could be done and I think that more government intrusion and restriction than is necessary in the constitution but overall I think it's much better than living under a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy.
well it looks like those wanting to see Clinton charged and thinking there is some shenanigans going on with the investigation just got handed a whole bunch of cannon fodder:
now if memory serves me correct it is not kosher for the AG to be meeting with on a personal basis the husband of someone her office is investigating? I may be wrong, but this does not bode well and will hurt Clinton in the election.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
guess you never heard of Ted Turner? or Oprah Winfrey? or the list goes on and on. and besides which its all moot anyway my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
Everything Trump does is Brand first, everything else second.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
guess you never heard of Ted Turner? or Oprah Winfrey? or the list goes on and on. and besides which its all moot anyway my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
I was unaware of Oprah running for President this year, though I didn't pay that close of attention so I'm not really sure.
Probably could guess you're butthurt that I don't like Trump supporters, not butthurt that I respected his business acumen. And Hillary being moot as President will be moot when she, you know, is actually not elected President. Until then its just moops.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
There is no reason for anyone to meet with a Clinton unless there is some extreme shady business going on. Everybody knows that meeting with a Clinton means that something horrible is going down. Only an idiot would ignore the fact that a Clinton was meeting with someone, because it means that crimes were committed and that everybody involved will go to jail. It truly is the nail in the coffin for everyone involved.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
There is no reason for anyone to meet with a Clinton unless there is some extreme shady business going on. Everybody knows that meeting with a Clinton means that something horrible is going down. Only an idiot would ignore the fact that a Clinton was meeting with someone, because it means that crimes were committed and that everybody involved will go to jail. It truly is the nail in the coffin for everyone involved.
you forgot the part where her department is investigating Clinton.
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
Asterios wrote: according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win..
Again, yet another deft display of your political acumen.
And apparently your clairvoyance, since you already know the outcome of the election that hasn't happened yet. Simply stunning.
Asterios wrote: according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win..
Again, yet another deft display of your political acumen.
And apparently your clairvoyance, since you already know the outcome of the election that hasn't happened yet. Simply stunning.
Isn't clinton winning by a "uuge" margin right now? Like public mandate margins?
Dreadwinter wrote: Remember, he doesn't agree with Trump. But he is voting for him.... because.... reasons.
Keep on smoking buddy! Your logic in this thread lately is just amazing.
Hey now, these are clearly alcohol related posts, if they are indeed non-sober. Don't denigrate cannabis users; their flaky logic tends to flake differently.
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Scooty correct me if I'm overstepping, but I feel like this should be your response:
Asterios wrote: in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Yeah, that's it guy. I'm too scared to make a stupid wager with some clown in the Dakka OT.
Goodness, you're just adorable.
but if you are so sure, then you shouldn't worry then, in fact if you are that certain it wouldn't even be a wager then for you. you are certain Trump will lose right?
jmurph wrote: New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck.
There are polls almost daily. The thing you have to remember is that most have a natural bias, and all of them have significant margins of error. As such if you just look at isolated polls here and there you'll find some really exciting results, as well as polls giving a neck and neck result there's also been polls showing Clinton with a double digits lead.
This is why it's important to look at poll aggregates. Until 538 gets their model up and running we have to make do with things like real clear politics. The aggregate there is showing Clinton up by an average of 6 points. It's hardly a decisive lead (bigger leads at this point in the campaign have been lost plenty of times in past elections), but what's also telling is the trend - polls were genuinely neck and neck a month ago, and since then it's been trending to Clinton very strongly.
EDIT - and sure enough the 538 model is up as of today. It gives Trump 20%, and shows Clinton up in an aggregate of national polls by 7%. The 20% chance is basically because we're a long way from the election which gives Trump a chance of improving his polling position.
So, Asterios, do you actually have any evidence or arguments to support your prediction that Trump will win despite current polling being strongly against him, or do you have nothing more than your assertion that you're always right about prediction election results?
On topic, please; off topic portions removed. --Janthkin
But yes Trump will probably lose the general election, his rhetoric is good for winning the primary because the republicans need to be far right to actually win it and that is what lost them the last two elections.
jmurph wrote: New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck.
There are polls almost daily. The thing you have to remember is that most have a natural bias, and all of them have significant margins of error. As such if you just look at isolated polls here and there you'll find some really exciting results, as well as polls giving a neck and neck result there's also been polls showing Clinton with a double digits lead.
This is why it's important to look at poll aggregates. Until 538 gets their model up and running we have to make do with things like real clear politics. The aggregate there is showing Clinton up by an average of 6 points. It's hardly a decisive lead (bigger leads at this point in the campaign have been lost plenty of times in past elections), but what's also telling is the trend - polls were genuinely neck and neck a month ago, and since then it's been trending to Clinton very strongly.
EDIT - and sure enough the 538 model is up as of today. It gives Trump 20%, and shows Clinton up in an aggregate of national polls by 7%. The 20% chance is basically because we're a long way from the election which gives Trump a chance of improving his polling position.
Ah but where's the fun in that? Hard to sell a horse race is one of the horses (the orange one) keeps slipping on the crap it is constantly spewing out. I was actually far more interested in the individual issue polling, which showed some interesting (terrifying?) numbers on where people see each candidate. I also can't help but feel that support is probably pretty even, with a lot on the Trump side being factors other than Trump. However, that is not to say that I am buying that the voting numbers put trump anywhere close to Clinton. My guess is he gets soundly thrashed by losing swing states. His numbers with women alone pretty much show him to be unelectable. It is just kind of sad he has as much support as he does with the things he says and that people back him despite knowing he's basically a snake oil salesman. Because HRC is obviously a murderer/liar/corrupt/Benghazi/etc.
.... seems a bit harsh, unlike many officials -- world over -- least he he was popular and good at his job.
The name of the town is White Settlement! Perhaps the city council should look at that issue next! As for the cat, yeah he should probably go. It pains me to say it but way too many people have allergies now-a-days to keep the bookstore/library/hobby shop cat around. Too bad. I personally like them.
Also, have we seen any recent polling in Battleground states? I know the demographics are against Trump in those regions, but like all elections turnout will be critical.
White Settlement was named for the white settlers who initially founded it in order to distinguish it from a nearby Native American settlement. It is almost 90% white and overwhelmingly voted down an attempt to rename it in 2005 (by a 9:1 ratio, oddly enough). Needless to say, not everyone in the area is comfortable with the name and its implications.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
If news of a secret meeting behind closed doors between them had come out, then yes, it would look suspicious, no matter if it were a Dem or GOP. However, a public greeting at an airport with numerous eyewitnesses, does not a scandal make.
Don't get caught up in polls right now. Things will tighten up once we get past both conventions. That's when you really need to start paying attention.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
If news of a secret meeting behind closed doors between them had come out, then yes, it would look suspicious, no matter if it were a Dem or GOP. However, a public greeting at an airport with numerous eyewitnesses, does not a scandal make.
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Don't get caught up in polls right now. Things will tighten up once we get past both conventions. That's when you really need to start paying attention.
Correct. The predictive value of polls right now isn't that great. As the general election gets closer the state wide polls will increase in predicitive value and we'll get a better idea of how competitive some of the key states will be.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
Hey, according to our leading resident political analyst Asterios, the fact that Bill Clinton talked to Loretta Lynch and her husband for fifteen minutes just handed Donald Trump the election.
You would be wise not to discount someone with such acute political acumen.
jmurph wrote: Ah but where's the fun in that? Hard to sell a horse race is one of the horses (the orange one) keeps slipping on the crap it is constantly spewing out. I was actually far more interested in the individual issue polling, which showed some interesting (terrifying?) numbers on where people see each candidate. I also can't help but feel that support is probably pretty even, with a lot on the Trump side being factors other than Trump. However, that is not to say that I am buying that the voting numbers put trump anywhere close to Clinton. My guess is he gets soundly thrashed by losing swing states. His numbers with women alone pretty much show him to be unelectable.
Yeah, he's behind in polls by a significant amount, and the numbers look even a bit worse when you look at swing states. And on top of that Clinton is running a solid campaign, while Trump is still learning that getting on the news and saying outrageous stuff isn't good enough for a national campaign, so it's likely it could get even worse by November.
But Trump is still in it, because November is a long way off. Something could happen, Trump could find a message that expands his voting numbers outside of angry stupid people and Republican loyalists who feel obligated to vote for their team no matter what. Or there could actually be some substance to Clinton's email thing. Or possibly some national event might happen.
But yeah, I agree that the media needs to sell a close race and so telling the story of Clinton winning soundly but anything might still happen so maybe tune in when something actually does happen just isn't going to capture ratings
It is just kind of sad he has as much support as he does with the things he says and that people back him despite knowing he's basically a snake oil salesman. Because HRC is obviously a murderer/liar/corrupt/Benghazi/etc.
Have you noticed that for so many voters, the more they need to justify voting for Trump... is the exact amount they'll hate Clinton and believe all the scandal nonsense? It's almost as if they've decided they're voting Republican like they always do, and from there it's been a case of believing whatever they have to make themselves okay with their vote.
Donald Trump is being accused of rape in a new $100 million lawsuit, and it is not the first time that Trump has been accused of rape. As reported by the Inquisitr, Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly threatened a Daily Beast reporter, telling writer Tim Mak that if he wrote an article about Ivana Trump’s rape allegations against her ex-husband, the lawyer would mess up the reporter’s life.
It is ironic that the presidential candidate, who famously called some Mexicans rapists, is the one who is once again facing the Trump name being associated with rape charges. As reported by the Daily Beast, Trump was accused of rape by Donald’s ex-wife, Ivana, when the ex-Mrs. Trump said that “The Donald” grew angry over her plastic surgeon recommendation. Ivana claimed Trump’s scalp surgery went awry, and in the 1993 book titled Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, Ivana reported that Trump allegedly ripped out Ivana’s hair and raped her in anger. Mysteriously, Ivana’s rape charges were altered to have Ivana eventually claim it was “emotional rape” and a differing type of sex.
Prestor Jon wrote: Correct. The predictive value of polls right now isn't that great. As the general election gets closer the state wide polls will increase in predicitive value and we'll get a better idea of how competitive some of the key states will be.
It's interesting to look at the 2012 aggregated polling from RCP. On 1st July in that race they had Obama winning by 3.6%. He ended up winning by 3.9%. However, between July 1st and election day there was a large surge to put Obama up by more than 5%, before Romney dragged it back to a statistical tie, before Obama dragged it out again, only for Romney to again bring things back to a statistical tie, before Obama moved out again to finish with an expected advantage of less than 1% (which he then beat on election day, as it turns out many pollsters had estimated turn out based on 2014 mid-term results, and thereby understated the Democratic vote).
So, uh yeah, a lead in July doesn't necessarily mean that much. Looking back at past elections at July polling... Obama lead in July in both elections and won. Bush trailed Kerry in 2004, but led Gore in 2000. Clinton led Gore in 1996 but trailed Bush 1992 in July. Dukakis 1988 lead over Bush was famous, because of how gakky things went from there. Reagan led from start to finish in 1984, but in 1980 in July he'd just taken a lead that he would later surrender and only regain in October with an incredible surge.
So there's kind of two patterns. There's one where a candidate never gives up a lead, their opponent may close the difference and even draw even, but ultimately the polls show a consistent advantage that is realised on election day. That's the two Obama results, or Clinton in 1996, or Reagan in 1984.
Then there's results where things did genuinely swing back and forth between the two candidates. One candidate might lead by a few points at one stage, only for the other to take the lead later on. Kerry and Bush in 2004, or Reagan and Carter in 1980. In those cases then the lead in July is meaningless as it will likely shift a few times between then and November.
As to which kind of campaign we're following, well it's a judgement call. So far Clinton has lead pretty consistently, Trump has managed to draw level in polling twice, only for Clinton to pull away to large leads each time. But of course it's only July, and so there's still time for things to change. But if the current pattern persists...
Sir Roger Gale was puzzled when a string of emails from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign landed in his inbox. As a Briton and a member of Parliament, Gale is barred by U.S. law from giving Trump money, much less voting for him.
“I’ve gotten rid of most of that rubbish,” Gale said in an interview.
The emails to Gale were among a wave of fundraising pleas inexplicably sent by the Trump campaign in recent days to lawmakers in the United Kingdom, Iceland, Australia and elsewhere. The solicitations prompted watchdog groups in Washington to file two separate complaints Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Trump campaign was violating federal law by soliciting funds from foreign nationals.
“The scale and scope of this does seem somewhat unprecedented,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, which joined Democracy 21 in one of the complaints.
The episode is only the latest fundraising stumble by Trump’s presidential campaign, which entered June with $1.3 million and has been scrambling to put together a financial operation to take on the well-funded campaign of likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Last week, Trump dispatched his first official fundraising email, casting a wide digital net for small donations that he hopes will infuse his cash-strapped campaign and the Republican Party’s coffers at a time when Clinton is lapping him in the money chase.
So far, his effort has both shown promise and hit speed bumps. His campaign said it raised $2 million in less than 12 hours after blasting out its first email. But the emails to foreign nationals have caused a distraction, at best, and some experts have raised questions about whether his initial appeals landed in supporters’ spam folders at a higher rate than normal.
Whether the snags prove to be growing pains for a campaign that until recently eschewed traditional fundraising or a sign of more serious stumbles to come is a key question facing Trump and the Republican Party as the general election comes into focus.
Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the complaints to the FEC or questions about why emails were sent to foreign lawmakers.
The emails were sent both before and after Trump’s trip to Scotland last weekend to visit two of his golf courses, and their message focused on the “Brexit” vote in Britain to leave the European Union.
The mogul is trying to build out his once-lean campaign operation with experienced hands. As a part of that process, Trump recently enlisted the help of the Prosper Group, an Indiana-based digital strategy firm, to help with online fundraising.
Gale, a Conservative who has served in the House of Commons for more than three decades, said the hostile tone of the Trump emails he received was off-putting. One from this week that he shared with The Washington Post was signed by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr.
“We’ve set another Trump-sized goal to raise another $10 million by Thursday at midnight. Please chip in what you can to help make Donald J. Trump the next President of the United States,” said the email, which was sent to Gale’s official parliamentary account.
Another fundraising pitch sent to the same account last week was signed by the candidate himself. “Hillary Clinton is a world-class liar,” it said.
“I don’t know if someone at Team Trump was stupid enough to think that all Conservative Party MPs would consider themselves Republicans,” Gale said. “But I asked around, and it seems that most others did get these emails, too.”
In reaching out to British MPs in particular, Trump’s team isn’t courting a particularly sympathetic audience. Members of Parliament from all major parties spent more than three hours debating Trump in January, ostensibly to consider banning his entry into the United Kingdom. Words such as “fool” and “buffoon” were used to describe Trump. Not one MP stood to speak in his defense.
In Iceland, Katrin Jakobsdottir, the chairwoman of the Left-Green Movement, a democratic socialist party that focuses on feminist and environmental issues, said she unexpectedly received a Trump campaign email and has “no idea” how she got on his list.
“I am a Left-Green politician and would not support his campaign,” she wrote in an email to The Post.
There have been other complications with Trump’s online fundraising.
Tom Sather, senior director of research at Return Path, a data firm that performs email studies and works with the Republican National Committee, said he noticed that Trump’s campaign switched domain names when he sent his first email out, causing many email services to flag it as spam and not recognize that it was coming from a familiar source.
Sather said he and his company also noticed a big jump in the size of Trump’s distribution list on June 21, signaling that the campaign may have added another list or lists to its existing file.
Renting email lists from former candidates is common practice in politics, and there is evidence suggesting Trump is doing that now. A Trump fundraising email sent out Wednesday afternoon came from “info@chrischristie.com.” Christie, a former presidential candidate and the Republican governor of New Jersey, supports Trump.
In last week’s fundraising email, Trump vowed to match the $2 million raised with his personal funds. Trump is also holding in-person fundraisers across the country more often.
But he will need to keep up an intense pace if he wants to catch up to Clinton. Compared with Trump’s $1.3 million, campaign finance filings showed Clinton had $42 million at the start of this month.
Trump is still adjusting to a more traditional fundraising structure after spending the primary relying heavily on his own money and on earned television media through countless interviews — as opposed to pricey paid TV ads that lesser-known candidates are often forced to purchase.
Trump often points out that he is raising money in part to help the rest of the GOP through a joint fundraising agreement he recently finalized with the RNC.
At a campaign rally Wednesday in Bangor, Maine, Trump suggested that he does not need to haul in much cash to help himself.
“First of all, I don’t even know why I need so much money,” he said. “You know, I go around, I make speeches. I talk to reporters. I don’t even need commercials, if you want to know the truth. Why do I need these commercials?”
Also, I don't recall anyone discussing this gem, which was a nice choice of background to drive home his core message:
Prestor Jon wrote: Correct. The predictive value of polls right now isn't that great. As the general election gets closer the state wide polls will increase in predicitive value and we'll get a better idea of how competitive some of the key states will be.
It's interesting to look at the 2012 aggregated polling from RCP. On 1st July in that race they had Obama winning by 3.6%. He ended up winning by 3.9%. However, between July 1st and election day there was a large surge to put Obama up by more than 5%, before Romney dragged it back to a statistical tie, before Obama dragged it out again, only for Romney to again bring things back to a statistical tie, before Obama moved out again to finish with an expected advantage of less than 1% (which he then beat on election day, as it turns out many pollsters had estimated turn out based on 2014 mid-term results, and thereby understated the Democratic vote).
So, uh yeah, a lead in July doesn't necessarily mean that much. Looking back at past elections at July polling... Obama lead in July in both elections and won. Bush trailed Kerry in 2004, but led Gore in 2000. Clinton led Gore in 1996 but trailed Bush 1992 in July. Dukakis 1988 lead over Bush was famous, because of how gakky things went from there. Reagan led from start to finish in 1984, but in 1980 in July he'd just taken a lead that he would later surrender and only regain in October with an incredible surge.
So there's kind of two patterns. There's one where a candidate never gives up a lead, their opponent may close the difference and even draw even, but ultimately the polls show a consistent advantage that is realised on election day. That's the two Obama results, or Clinton in 1996, or Reagan in 1984.
Then there's results where things did genuinely swing back and forth between the two candidates. One candidate might lead by a few points at one stage, only for the other to take the lead later on. Kerry and Bush in 2004, or Reagan and Carter in 1980. In those cases then the lead in July is meaningless as it will likely shift a few times between then and November.
As to which kind of campaign we're following, well it's a judgement call. So far Clinton has lead pretty consistently, Trump has managed to draw level in polling twice, only for Clinton to pull away to large leads each time. But of course it's only July, and so there's still time for things to change. But if the current pattern persists...
I don't disagree with your assessment of the value of poll numbers in July, but I was trying to make the point that intrastate polls will be of more predictive value than national polls. As we get closer to November the state polls will give us a stronger indication of who will win each state, which may or may not be consistent with who's leading the national polls. Essentially, I wanted to note that if Trump somehow keeps things close in key states like Florida and Ohio in five months from now we'll have an interesting election night even if Clinton consistently leads in national polls. I'm not trying to say that the RCP average has no value, just that it doesn't tell the whole story because it glosses over the subplots happening on the state level.
Major themes and findings
◾Think probabilistically. Our probabilities are based on the historical accuracy of election polls since 1972. When we say a candidate has a 30 percent chance of winning despite being down in the polls, we’re not just covering our butts. Those estimates reflect the historical uncertainty in polling.
◾State polls > national polls. All versions of our models gain more information from state polls than from national polls.
◾Errors are correlated. But while the election is contested at the state level, the error is correlated from state to state. If a candidate beats his polls to win Ohio, there’s a good chance he’ll also do so in Pennsylvania.
◾Be conservative early and aggressive late. Fluctuations in the polls in the summer are often statistical noise or short-term bounces. The model is trained to be conservative in reacting to them. Fluctuations late in the race are more meaningful, and the model will be more aggressive.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't disagree with your assessment of the value of poll numbers in July, but I was trying to make the point that intrastate polls will be of more predictive value than national polls. As we get closer to November the state polls will give us a stronger indication of who will win each state, which may or may not be consistent with who's leading the national polls.
Definitely. One part of Clinton's 7% lead is that states like Texas are showing very little enthusiasm for Trump. This shows how weak he is as a general election candidate but in pure maths doesn't actually hurt his November chances, as whether he wins Texas by recent average of around 15% or Trump's current lead of around 5%, Trump will still take every electoral vote in the state.
I was only using the RCP national average as a proxy until 538 got their model up and going, which has fortunately just happened, giving us political junkies some real substance, instead of just national polling averages.
Essentially, I wanted to note that if Trump somehow keeps things close in key states like Florida and Ohio in five months from now we'll have an interesting election night even if Clinton consistently leads in national polls. I'm not trying to say that the RCP average has no value, just that it doesn't tell the whole story because it glosses over the subplots happening on the state level.
Absolutely. But then we also have to recognise the other possibility, that Trump might claw back some or all of the 7% lead, but make no dent in the electoral college. Trump has spent little time and no money in the key swing states, while Clinton has focused there intensely.
But of course, the big thing right now is that it's still very early in the race.
Now I can unhinge the Clinton voters in my office (a solid 90%+)
I never recommend anyone advertising their politics in the workplace.
Unless you're a misanthrope who confuses confrontation with genuine human interaction.
Is it an official Trump MAGA hat, or a Amazon knock-off?
From the site, with a donation. Some stickers as well
I work at one of the top ten banks, one of the VPs is a huge fan of a few sports teams so we'll have the office floor flooded with sports logos / friday you can wear your teams jersey or business casual. Much easier to wear a t shirt with a sports team than the slacks/suit I wear Mon-Thurs. For politics the few nice ladies that sit around me have massive #IMWITHHER printed out on their filing cabinets. It's mostly light trolling and jest. I've yet to meet a Bernie supporter here
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't disagree with your assessment of the value of poll numbers in July, but I was trying to make the point that intrastate polls will be of more predictive value than national polls. As we get closer to November the state polls will give us a stronger indication of who will win each state, which may or may not be consistent with who's leading the national polls.
Definitely. One part of Clinton's 7% lead is that states like Texas are showing very little enthusiasm for Trump. This shows how weak he is as a general election candidate but in pure maths doesn't actually hurt his November chances, as whether he wins Texas by recent average of around 15% or Trump's current lead of around 5%, Trump will still take every electoral vote in the state.
I was only using the RCP national average as a proxy until 538 got their model up and going, which has fortunately just happened, giving us political junkies some real substance, instead of just national polling averages.
Essentially, I wanted to note that if Trump somehow keeps things close in key states like Florida and Ohio in five months from now we'll have an interesting election night even if Clinton consistently leads in national polls. I'm not trying to say that the RCP average has no value, just that it doesn't tell the whole story because it glosses over the subplots happening on the state level.
Absolutely. But then we also have to recognise the other possibility, that Trump might claw back some or all of the 7% lead, but make no dent in the electoral college. Trump has spent little time and no money in the key swing states, while Clinton has focused there intensely.
But of course, the big thing right now is that it's still very early in the race.
True. Pretty soon Trump is going to have to deploy a ground game and start spending money if he wants to convince any of the big donors to give him any. Doing nothing but stump speeches isn't going to convince people to throw significant amounts of money into his campaign.
d-usa wrote: The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
I'm calling bs on that.
Don't kid yourself that you wouldn't flip out had AG John Ashcroft "met" with a Republican in this fashion that was being investigated by his DOJ.
If news of a secret meeting behind closed doors between them had come out, then yes, it would look suspicious, no matter if it were a Dem or GOP. However, a public greeting at an airport with numerous eyewitnesses, does not a scandal make.
actually it was a private meeting aboard a private plane, as it goes the AG has already stated she will go with the recommendations of the FBI because of that meeting.
and evidently that meeting has caused headaches for the Clinton campaign too, but most here in their all knowing wisdom think it would not. and yet even the AG regrets meeting with him.
He goes back to Ripley, Ohio which he visited briefly 23 years ago and finds it changed from a thriving mixed economy to a depressed shell of its former self.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here is another very good column by Michael Goldfarb, following up on his "40 year hurt" theme that helps explain the Trump phenomenon.
He goes back to Ripley, Ohio which he visited briefly 23 years ago and finds it changed from a thriving mixed economy to a depressed shell of its former self.
pretty much in a nutshell, nobody wants to vote for either candidate, but by not voting for one it insures the other will win, the countries hurting and its hurting badly and people are getting fed up with politicians, whats next revolution?
. Over here in the 
s are properly dealt with.
